Talk:Uluru/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is this a better picture of "Climb Closed" sign?

I don't want to just smother another one's work with mine so I am linking it here and ask that someone gives me third-party feedback on if this picture is better. If anyone wants to crop it, etc.. Go ahead, it's PD for a reason :) [1] -- RichiH (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's better, I think. What we really need is a better version of that picture with the photographer's shadow in it ... that one has been on this article for years and has always bugged me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This image is significantly better than the existing one. I'm going ahead and making the switch. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bit confused?

I have read some of the archives (including a proposed move) and don't quite understand why Uluru was chosen as the name for the article? Uluru isn't the official name (Gazette says Uluru/Ayers Rock nor the most common name used (Surely Uluru/Ayers Rock are now equal in usage?). I am not here to force a move, but would just like to know what happened with that conversation and why the page is found at it's current location. Bezuidenhout (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

see Bombay or was that Calcutta Gnangarra 13:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Check the Archived talk. The discussions took place in there. Ashmoo (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

New Photo For Uluru Wiki Page

seeing as the photos on the Uluru Wiki are all old and have never changed or updated.

I was at the rock last September and took 3 photos of it's "changing colours" between 5.30pm to 5.40pm (CST) so I stitched all three photos in hopes it could make it on the page to give tourist a chance to see it's changes between afternoon and dusk. [2] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanish player101 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No offence, but I don't see any color change, only shadows darkening the rock. The same pattern could be taken of virtually any structure as clouds passed overhead. TO me it doesn't seem to convey the unusual appearance of Uluru. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Uluru's colour change has, I believe, more to do with how sunlight hits it, not to do with shadows caused by clouds. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

is this old?

is the rock old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.75.103 (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, read the "Age and origin" section of the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Age and origin" section either needs to be changed to "Origin and age" or needs a re-write. It doesn't gives an explicit age/geologic era until the second half of the section, while starting the section by comparing it to other landforms without mentioning their ages either. Can someone please improve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.76.187 (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Climate statistics for Uluru

To the contributor of this table, please be advised that the record minimum monthly temperatures for the months of March through to December are identical to the average minimum monthly temperatures. I am not able to find out what the record minimum monthly temperatures are for those 10 months, however these figures need to be checked and updated

Regards,

220.233.108.119 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Alex ( alex@nowt.com.au )

All now fixed - the relevant data was on the extended list of climate stats page for YULARA AERO at:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015635_All.shtml. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Climbing Uluru: Height

The height is listed as a 800m climb where as the height of Uluru is only 347 m

There is no error, but two heights: above sea level and above ground. Materialscientist (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the 800m refers to the length of the climb, not the elevation. I thought that was apparent, but perhaps not. Suggestions for a clarification? — Huntster (t @ c) 10:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Refers where? See [3]. Materialscientist (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced sentence

The statement "Both Uluru and the nearby Kata Tjuta formation have great cultural significance for the Aṉangu people, the traditional inhabitants of the area, who lead walking tours to inform visitors about the local flora and fauna, bush foods and the Aboriginal dreamtime stories of the area" does not belong under the heading "Description". I propose moving in up to the introduction to replace the shorter sentence "Uluru is sacred to the Anangu, the Aboriginal people of the area". Or it could be moved down to form the introductory sentence of the section headed "Myths, legends and Aboriginal traditions". Or it could just be deleted as redundant. Zamphuor (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

However, it does flow on from the introductory sentence of the "Description" section: "Uluru is one of Australia's most recognisable natural landmarks.", so it may be worth keeping it where it is. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Uluru → Ayers Rock – Although there have been a few discussions on this over the years, there has never been an official Move Request. Move Requests are designed to obtain outside input from normally uninvolved editors. The last discussion took place over a year ago and was very small in scope in terms of the number of editors. The largest discussion took place over 7 years ago. Now a lot has changed since then. Especially in the Wikipedia communities views of WP:COMMONNAME and how it is applied. In just about every discussion prior to this, the views appear to be split. The number one reason why this article should be renamed Ayers Rock is because it is the obvious and undisputed most common English Language name for the site. Uluru is the Aboriginal name for it, but the most common English language name is AyersRock. The official name appears to be Uluru/Ayers Rock. But Wikipedia doesn't use official names unless the official name is also the most common English Language name. Locally, the site may be referred to at Uluru by English speakers, but as a whole, world wide, the site is known most commonly in English as Ayers Rock. And since this is the English Wikipedia and not the Aboriginal Wikipedia, the English name should be used. Thats not only common sense, but its policy. A simple Google search confirms that Ayers Rock gets more hits than Uluru. And its a forgone conclusion that just about all Google hits for Uluru contain the words "Ayers Rock", but the same cannot be said for the opposite. And Many of those hits for "Uluru" are simple mirrors and forks of this Wikipedia article, especially considering that this article has been titled "Uluru" all these years. This proposal is not meant to show any disrespect toward the Aboriginal people or to their culture. I realize that many Aboriginals call it Uluru and that some English speakers in Australia call it "Uluru", but probably not the majority of English speakers in Australia do. Most certainly the majority of English speakers outside of Australia do not call it "Uluru" but refer to it as "Ayers Rock", which is the most common English language name. JOJ ^Hutton 17:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• !nope is my !vote. Can't say I've studied the issue exhaustively, but at least where I live in the southern U.S., I've only ever heard it called Uluru. *shrug* I also emphatically disagree with the idea of COMMONNAME, but that's another issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: If Wikipedia existed back in the 70s, it would've been known as Ayers Rock but in the modern times, it's more commonly known as Uluru. "but probably not the majority of English speakers in Australia do", clearly pure assumption based on little if any facts. I really have no idea why you then say "Ayers Rock gets more hits than Uluru", when you look more in-depth; Uluru also shows up in the Ayers Rock result which is why it is higher. Officially, it has a dual name Uluru / Ayers Rock. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  The question is where is it commonly known as Uluru? Not in the English speaking world. In parts of Australia maybe, but definitely not outside of Australia, where you are from it appears. Your POV is not backed by reliable sources on the matter.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:COMMONALITY. Both names are official so WP:OFFICIALNAMES shouldn't matter here. Also note a similar move discussion at Talk:Ganges. —  AjaxSmack  03:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Both are common names, though "Uluru" is far more common. While using Google hits isn't ideal, I've found that the results for books using search terms "Uluru" or "Ayers Rock" to be equal but the use of "Uluru" is the most common name used. Bidgee (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's where WP:COMMONALITY kicks in. See the nominator's comment below User:Jojhutton's. —  AjaxSmack  12:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment re "obvious and undisputed most common English Language name for the site", "…some English speakers in Australia call it "Uluru", but probably not the majority of English speakers in Australia do". As an Australian, I would say, over the past two decades or so, usage within Australian sources has shifted to heavily prefer Uluru over Ayers Rock, both within government and "popular" media. And I would say the same for the general public – to me, using Ayers Rock in general conversation would seem outdated. I can't (or can't be bothered to) back that up with anything, that's just my feeling. Oh, and I wouldn't base the common usage just on a Google search. With regard to the possibility of dual naming (i.e., Uluru / Ayers Rock), I would be interested to hear from some New Zealand editors about whether our title Aoraki / Mount Cook reflects common usage in New Zealand. IgnorantArmies 04:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, Common name is now Uluru, Ayers Rock is outdated and being used less frequently. Google Ngrams clearly show usage for Uluru being more common from mid-90's onwards: [4] Zarcadia (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Uluru is far less common outside of Australia. This is the English Language Wikipedia for the entire world and not just for Australia. And if "Ayers Rock" is outdated, the government wouldn't have kept it in the "official name". That shows that there are still people, even in Australia, who consider the site as "Ayers Rock".--JOJ ^Hutton 12:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: I would suggest that we have to consider the local preference here as well, as we do with a variety of other aspects of articles, including (most prominently) spelling and date formats. And Zarcadia, that graph is fantastic, I've never heard of such a Google function before. It's also very telling of the rise and fall of each term, across the entire English language. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  (EC) @Jojhutton: Would be like arguing for the use of US spelling for Australian articles. Different countries will always know places, countries and locations by different names but it should be named per the country of origin and not what some Americans, British or Canadians think it should be. While EN Wikipedia is an English wiki, it also uses different variations of the English language. Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  If it was only a spelling issue there wouldn't be a problem, there is already already a guideline that covers that. WP:ENGVAR. But this is not a spelling issue, its a most common name used in reliable sources issue. That guideline is WP:COMMONNAME. Common name used in English language sources, all English language sources, not just Australian sources.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Last time I looked, Australia is part of the English language. Wikipedia shouldn't dictate the name to suit people leaving in the past. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Yes Australia is part of the English language, but only one part of many parts. As far as living in the past, you keep bringing that up, but show no proof of it at all. Obviously "Ayers Rock" is still part of the official name, so I'm nor sure how far "past" you are referring to. And besides Wikipedia guidelines are blind to such issues. One thing, and thing only is described within WP:COMMONNAME, and that is what name is most commonly used in reliable sources. All reliable sources, even reliable sources outside of Australia.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Zarcadia (talk) posted this link above, which shows the decline of Ayers Rock and the increased use of Uluru (Global, not just "Australia").

  • Arnold, Caroline (2003). Uluru, Australia's Aboriginal heart. New York, NY: Clarion Books. ISBN 9780618181810.
  • Brockman, Norbert C. Encyclopedia of sacred places (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. pp. 575–576. ISBN 9781598846546. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) Bidgee (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  That only confirms that "books" use "Uluru", but books are only a small percentage of the reliable sources. We have to look at ALL reliable sources and see what the usage is in ALL sources not just a few books.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TIES which generally trumps global commonality. Uluru is now the most common name used in Australian English. Ganges has been raised as an example but the Indian RMs have produced mixed results on this issue - see Talk:Odisha#Requested move for a counter-example - and that's primarily because of the low number of Indian Wikipedians and a tendency by other editors to dismiss the validity of Indian English. (And anticipating claims that Uluru is not an English name, Uluru may originate from the Aborginal languages but is a name used in English and thus now as much an English name as Wagga Wagga.) Timrollpickering (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  WP:TIES is a spelling variation issue. Not a naming issue, so no it will not trump WP:COMMONNAME because this is not a spelling issue. The fact that "Ayers Rock" is still used in Australia by that spelling, even in its official name, confirms that "Ayers Rock" is the correct spelling, so WP:ENGVAR is not applicable. And Uluru is not most commonly used in English in most of the English Language sources, which is the only indication of usage per the guidelines.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  There is not need to reply to virtually every single !vote that disagrees with you; such an approach just fills up screens and can put people off from commenting. That is close to the WP:BLUDGEON approach. WP:TIES and WP:ENGVAR apply to titles just as much as within articles, otherwise we'd get the nonsense of the two not matching, and this has been upheld in other RMs such as the one above. If you actually read WP:COMMONNAME it states "For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English below." Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Wouldn't need to respond to different comments if everything in each comment was correct. Such as you previous comment that this has been "upheld in other Rms, such as the one above." For your information, this is the first and only requested RM on this issue, so this has never been discussed or upheld by any RM. This type of misinformation always demands a response and it is my right to respond to any information that I think is incorrect, so that the closing Admin will have ALL the pertinent information from both sides, not just the misinformation from one side.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Your claim would hold more water if you weren't commenting so frequently. For your information, I was referring to the RM I linked to above where the issue of international common name vs national ties common name has come up before. And if you're so concerned about misinformation, you claim about common name has been given no more substantiation than a crude Google count. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  OK. Read the RM that you were referring too. Sorry for the confusion. In that case, it appears that the name of the city was officially changed from one name to another. Not sure why, but I understand the gist of the arguments in that case. In that RM I would have supported the move request because in cases such as these, there tends to be an agreement among most Wikipedia editors that articles on towns/cities/countries should use the official name. With this article, there appears to be a decision to either use the Aboriginal name or use the English name. The official name is Uluru/Ayers Rock, which would also fall in line with geographic areas using official names. There is, however, precedent on Wikipedia to have the common English name as the article name, such as in the article Taiwan. In this situation the common English name is preferred over the official name.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Taiwan sets no precedent, like Burma, the name is a political one. Again, I've pointed out that Uluru is commonly used not just in Australia but also the US by showing you two sources (above).

  Some more reliable sources that use "Uluru" (not just the title but also in the content).

  • Figueroa, Robert Melchior (1 October 2008). "Cracks in the Mirror: (Un)covering the Moral Terrains of Environmental Justice at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park". Ethics, Place & Environment. 11 (3): 327–349. doi:10.1080/13668790802559726. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)*
  • "Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park". World Heritage Centre. UNESCO.
  • Grimwade, Gordon (2013). "Rock of ages: rising 1,142 feet in the Central Australian desert, Uluru is visited by thousands of tourists each year". Faces. 30 (1): 14–17. ISSN 0749-1387. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)*
  • Hueneke, Hannah (2009). "Tourist behaviour, local values, and interpretation at Uluru: 'The sacred deed at Australia's mighty heart'". GeoJournal. 74 (5): 477–490. doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9249-2. ISSN 1572-9893. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)*
  • Fickling, David (2004). "Aboriginal TV station overturns ban on alcohol advertising". The Lancet. 363 (9410): 710–711. ISSN 0140-6736. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)*
  • Zeppel, Heather (2009). "Managing cultural values in sustainable tourism: Conflicts in protected areas". Tourism and Hospitality Research. 10 (2): 93–104. doi:10.1057/thr.2009.28. ISSN 1467-3584. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)*
  • Lancashire, Dianne (2009). "Open for inspection: Problems in representing a humanised wilderness". The Australian Journal of Anthropology. 10 (3): 306–319. ISSN 1035-8811.*
  • Waldron, David (2012). "Rethinking Appropriation of the Indigenous". Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 16 (2): 64–85. doi:10.1525/nr.2012.16.2.64. ISSN 1541-848. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)*
  • "Aboriginal spirituality: a baseline for Indigenous knowledges development in Australia". The Canadian Journal of Native Studies. 28 (2): 363–398. 2008. ISSN 0715-3244.*
  • Camacho, A. (2002). "Isotopic test of a thermally driven intraplate orogenic model, Australia". Geology. 30 (10): 887–890. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2002)​030<0887:ITOATD>​2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0091-7613. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); zero width space character in |doi= at position 24 (help)
  • McKercher, Bob (2008). "Rationalising Inappropriate Behaviour at Contested Sites". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 16 (4): 369–385. doi:10.1080/09669580802154165. ISSN 0966-9582. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

  * I have full access to the Journal, though unable to "share it" due to copyright restrictions. Bidgee (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the rationales expressed by Zarcadia, Bidgee, Timrollpickering, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons cited above. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As someone who has been collecting local press clippings for quite a few years (which is becoming more difficult now that paywalls have been erected around News Ltd websites), and after skimming over around 45 collected articles I can report that the mainstream press (The Australian, The Advertiser and the Northern Territory News) almost exclusively use "Uluru". The only times that "Ayers Rock" is used is when direct speech is being quoted, or when the nearby Ayers Rock Resort is mentioned, as in this article. However, in the more colloquial style affected by the Northern Territory News, "The Rock" is frequently used as an alternate to "Uluru".

One article from 8 July 2009 ("'Big Brother' plan to ban Uluru climb", originally in the Northern Territory News but now apparently unavailable) attracted 100 blog posts. Given the controversial nature of the topic, there was a broad spectrum of opinion - here is my quick tally of the number of bloggers using each term: Uluru (31); Ayers Rock (6); The Rock (7); the rock (22). If anyone wants to see this collected material (as a 200 kb text file), send me an email. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: the NT News story I mentioned above can be found here - but this only lists only 78 blog posts, so it's not quite the same version. Cheers,

Bahudhara (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ngram results are pretty telling. Not only the overall results posted above, but even when restricted to American English and British English, Uluru has overtaken Ayers Rock in reliable sources. Dohn joe (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It has been speculated that "ayers rock" is more common outside of Australia (though this seems dubious), but really, how often do people outside of Australia talk about the thing in the first place? Basically, I'm saying the same thing as Timrollpickering, that WP:TIES should trump other considerations in this case. anamedperson (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, probably not that often. I still refer to it as "Ayers Rock" in common speech but that's probably more a product of the time and place that I grew up. Both would be universally understood and both are still in common usage, although "Uluru" is certainly becoming more common in the past decade or so. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Was there ever an apostrophe in "Ayers Rock"?

I was wondering if anyone knows the history of the spelling of "Ayers Rock", if it ever had an apostrophe after the S? My understanding is that place names in Australia haven't had apostrophes in them since 1966, but what about before then, was it ever "Ayers' Rock" or "Ayers's Rock", or was it always "Ayers Rock"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.105.132 (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the journal entry by "discoverer" William Gosse, he did indeed name the feature Ayers' Rock. See http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=221&c=1381. Unfortunately, search engines forcibly strip out apostrophes from search terms, so I just had to troll through pages of results. There were *extremely* few incidents of "Ayers'" that I could find on Australian government websites. There were quite a few more examples of "Ayer's", even from within the last few years; these are obviously mistakes since the namesake is Sir Henry Ayers, not Ayer. Perhaps someone else can provide better information, as this might be an interesting addition to the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm almost finished reading Under the Sun, the letters of Bruce Chatwin, and there are various instances of Ayer's Rock - not from BC, I hasten to add, but mainly in footnotes from the co-editor Elizabeth Chatwin. She is an American so ...  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2014

Subject: Uluru/Ares Rock, Australia Lat, Long location is wrong. Current location would put it in south pacific ocean. 2601:1:8780:3DE:303F:4376:49B2:815A (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not from what I'm seeing... Google Maps puts those coordinates dead center of Uluru. Can you provide a source that says those coordinates are wrong? --ElHef (Meep?) 21:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Better question is, what exactly are you doing that brings those results? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2014

2601:1:8780:3DE:F4C4:8105:5DBA:F394 (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Actually I stand corrected. The map I was using indicated Ulruru at ~ -228 deg long - which IS 131 East, so the coordinates are correct. My error.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Article is locked

And some wrote "g is best" in the Name section... Regardless of what positive connotation that could have, I guess "g is best" removed...

Already done. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, ultrafast! Thanks... Materialscientist is the best. :-P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.106.220 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014

'Aerial' view, not 'Helicopter view'

Tom01914 (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable request, so  Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Name of article (article should be named "Uluru (Ayers Rock)", or perhaps "Uluru / Ayers Rock" to match official government naming

Just noticed that the article is named "Uluru". Given that the most common name is Ayers Rock, and that the article in question is officially given a dual name, why is the article's title not "Uluru (Ayers Rock)"? The article is wrongly preferring one name over the other.

I am not going to get into spamming links from everywhere to argue that one name is more popular than the other. Suffice to say that the official name is "Uluru / Ayers Rock" as per the NT Place Names Register: http://www.ntlis.nt.gov.au/placenames/view.jsp?id=10532

From the previous discussion, it is obvious that some people (Bidgee) would like to see one name preferred to the other. It is obvious to everybody that both names at least belong in the title.

115.64.159.41 (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. My impression from visiting the place recently is that the name Uluru is far more common now. And it's common names that matter here, not official government publications. You really would have to produce some evidence of your claim "that the most common name is Ayers Rock". HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a perennial request, and as you can see a few sections above, there is no consensus to move from the current name. We're not obligated to use the Australian government's preferred naming, but the one derived by common practice and consensus. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the Northern Territory's government our IP is referring to, not Australia's. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was under the impression that it was a country-wide policy, not just NT. Whoops. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015

The name "Ayers rock" is not used anymore, and it now actually considered incorrect. I LIVE in Australia, and if you ask anyone here who's Australian or Aboriginal they will tell you so. I therefore don't have ACTUAL source material, but i can tell you it is not known as that anymore. So could you please remove "Also known as Ayers rock" because it isn't. Or at least say that the name is incorrect. It's called Uluru because that is the Aboriginal name for it, and the Aboriginals have requested you not call it by the incorrect name to respect their culture. I haven't read the rest or the wiki, but just as a heads up, you're not actually allowed to climb it anymore. 58.6.218.218 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: since you can't provide a source, there's no reason to change it. Also, even if the name is falling out of use, it would still have a certain historical significance. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, have you not heard? It is now offensive and incorrect to not use the native name for a geographical feature. Those arrogant Englishmen, daring to give things names in their own language! In all seriousness, the reason Australians have for the most part stopped using "Ayer's Rock", which the IP is correct in saying, is that it's a hell of a lot easier to get overseas tourists to fly into the middle of a huge desert to look at a big rock when it's got some melodious exotic-sounding name. Also, the people who make a point of using Aboriginal names for everything, for fear of offending someone, are invariably English-speaking and non-Aboriginal, as I imagine the above poster is. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't Usenet - if you can't make a point without insulting others, please don't clutter up the discussion. I'd remove it, but some folks get hinky about editing Talk pages. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the others. Yes, in Australia it is most commonly called Uluru, and the article title reflects that. But it is still referred to as Ayers Rock around the world, especially in a historical context, and it is still officially gazetted as "Uluru/Ayers Rock". So, the article will reflect that side of things as well. We do not censor simply because someone may take offense. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Color constancy" wlink

There is no citation for explaining the color changes of Uluru as being due to color constancy, which suggests (as the linked article discusses) that the change in color of the mountain is due to the surrounding colors being different, which is not backed up by anything in the article or elsewhere. Link should be removed. -- 64.187.160.52 (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

PRONOUNCED (OO-LA-ROO)

I WOULD LIKE FOR THE ENGLISH PRONOUNCIATION TO BE CHANGED 05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)~

Why? What do you want it changed to? Closing this for now as lacking clarity. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Widely known as Ayers Rock

The most used name is Ayers Rock. Although the article probably should use the name Uluru, Ayers Rock is the widely used name. I replaced 'also' in the opening sentence to 'widely'. It's not POV. Any disagreement for changing it? Crzyclarks (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, it was in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Also "widely" is your POV, no sources given to back up your POV. Bidgee (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's still used more often. [5], [6], [7]. Flights are a good example of Ayers Rock being used more, both internationally and domestically. [8] ~ "While Uluru is the Aboriginal and official name, Ayers Rock is the most commonly used name outside Australia.", [9] ~ "Since then, both names have been used, although Ayers Rock was the name used by most people." [10] ~ "Still called Ayers Rock by many, its official name is Uluru." Holiday websites mostly use Ayers Rock if you want to do a google search. Flights and holiday places are more accurate in which name is used more often than people, because it has to go on what name is used more, rather than other publications who may use the more PC term. Those are just a few sources I chose and the flights especially show what name is more known both outside and inside Australia. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks pretty convincing to me, if you add one of those references. "Widely" doesn't mean "most of the time" or even "a majority of the time" so I don't think it's excessive. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I added it in, it would be more accurate to say 'more widely' instead of just 'widely', but I'll leave it at 'widely known'. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Crzyclarks shouldn't be criticzed for asserting that Ayers is still the more widely-used name - at least in my circles (USA), Ayers is the ONLY name that the rock is known by. Granted that will change as time goes by, but for now that is the situation. Cheers Raymondwinn (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change it to 'more widely'. That looks like the most used name. There was already a vote on changing the article to Ayers Rock, so we'll keep the article name as Uluru. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on trvel websites, sorry but they are not reliable. Find something in a news source or paper (research) that is peer reviewed. Bidgee (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, "not reliable"? They reliably report what the location is called in prominent sites (e.g., Quantas). That doesn't make it an official name, but they do reliably reflect how the formation is called. Nonetheless, I've stuck in a couple of news reports that call it Ayers Rock (hard to ref these days, what with paywalls), and switched "more widely" back to "widely" - no need to try to order it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Qantas (NOT Quantas) sell products (airfares, hotels, hire cars ect), it isn't there for "reseach" or "reporting" on facts. Sources you've used do not state "commonly known" or "widely known", very fact is that it supported the current use of "also known as" since the sources still used Uluru withn their articles. Use of "widely" is OR and POV without the source(s) stating it. Bidgee (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Look up the definition of 'widely'. Travel and holiday providers clearly show that it is widely used. Other sources I provided also show this. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Travel and holiday providers will show what they want to show, doesn't mean it is fact. Again no where in the sources cited state that Uluru is "widely known" as Ayers Rock, that is your OR and POV. All the sources you've showed have had both names but it doesn't make Ayers Rock "widely known", only a "also known as". Bidgee (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also strongly dispute that Uluru is still "widely" known as Ayers Rock. But, in any case, "widely known" is a subjective assessment - a bit like "how long is a piece of string" - whereas "also known as" is objectively factual and neutral and should be used in encyclopaedia articles regardless of what so-called "sources" such as Qantas think. Afterwriting (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Afterwriting on this. "Widely" is subjective, while "also known as" is completely neutral. We are charged on Wiki with remaining as neutral as possible. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with using "also" over "widely". The sources provided don't specifically address frequency of usage, they only establish that the location has two official names and both are in use. "Also" is the more neutral and accurate way of stating this. --Muchness (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to state that it is widely known. Companies and other information sources using Ayers Rock first or in prominence over Uluru, or even just a lot in the article show that it is widely known. Stating that in the article is not OR or my POV! Again, widely is not making a claim that it is used the majority of the time, just that it is widely used, which is true from the sources. Accuracy is what is important in an encyclopaedia, widely is accurate because of the sources. 'Also' is not neutral, it means that it is uncommon to use this name. Widely is the most neutral because it reflects its usage. The sources don't need to address the frequency of usage, they establish that Ayers Rock is the preferred name by them. Travel and holiday sources reflect that it is widely used. Widely just means that it is used by a lot of people. Crzyclarks (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It (source) does need to state that "widely", otherwise it is pure OR and POV unsupportive by sources other then the fact both names are used. "Also" is far more neutral then "widely". Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not OR or POV, using the sources reflects that it is widely used. The fact of the sources is that Ayers Rock is preferred over Uluru. It wouldn't even need to be preferred for it to be widely used, because widely just means it is used by a lot of people. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"The fact of the sources is that Ayers Rock is preferred over Uluru."? Are you being serious? The sources don't seem to say or even suggest this at all - in fact the only usable sources that you've cited suggest exactly the opposite. Afterwriting (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is getting unnecessarily heated. I think that "widely" is just as accurate as "also" in this case - using it is a judgement call, like virtually all edits, but it's such an incredibly obvious call that labelling it POV is kind of silly. Much of the non-Australian English-speaking world has no idea what Uluru means: It's not by accident that the most prominent international-tourist trap at the site is Ayers Rock Resort!

Having said that, I don't think it matters much; both words are accurate. Since more of the active editors prefer "also" we should use that; we're certainly not misleading readers.

(As a side note, I certainly fell for the Qantas/Quantas trick. Shame on me for not paying more attention.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The travel and holiday sources are the most usable. The other general information sources are even less, but also point to Ayers Rock being widely used. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that the "travel and holiday" sources are the most usuable then you have failed to understand Wikipedia' policies on what are considered reliable sources. The more reliable references simply say "also known as". As you have so far failed to find any consensus for your contentious "widely" wording this has again been removed on policy grounds. If you continue to insist on adding this word against the consensus of other editors then this will be considered disruptive editing and you will run the the risk of being blocked. Afterwriting (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the policies, they are reliable sources. Do you even know what 'widely' means? I have said it multiple times and the sources clearly show that it is widely used. If I was saying Ayers Rock is used more often than Uluru, you'd have a point regarding the sources. However, I am clearly saying that Ayers Rock is used by a lot of people, which the sources show. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

They are *not* reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. So you obviously don't understand the policies if you think that they are. They are very inadequate sources. Saying that Uluru is "also known as Ayers Rock" is more than adequate. You seem to want to make "widely" to mean "most" - and what percentage of people are "a lot"? While this may be factually true you have not provided any acceptably reliable evidence to support it. And, as a matter of fact, you have actually written above that you believe that "Ayers Rock is used more often than Uluru" - your very first comment on this issue was "The most used name is Ayers Rock." Are you now contradicting yourself? And, as you have already outed yourself as thinking that Uluru is the so-called "PC" name, it could be assumed that you have a POV agenda on this issue. Its official names are *both* Uluru and ("also") Ayers Rock. Saying that it is "widely" known as Ayers Rocks could be interpreted to mean this is not an official name or a former name. In other words it is potentionally misleading. Afterwriting (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I did a search of “Ayers Rock” versus Uluru on different search engines. The results, which I got were:

I. Google Search: “Ayers Rock” - 4,310,000 hits; Uluru - 4,840,000 hits

II. Google Scholar: “Ayers Rock” - 4,360 hits; Uluru - 5,810 hits

III. Bing: “Ayers Rock” - 1,400,000 hits; Uluru - 3,370,000 hits

IV. GEOREF: "Ayers Rock" - 45 hits; Uluru - 31 hits

An interesting article about Uluru is:

Stewart, A, 2011, New cross-sections through Uluru and Kata Tjuta. Australian Geologist. vol. 159, pp. 20-22 (June 2011). Paul H. (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just being ridiculous (Afterwriting). They are reliable in working out that Ayers Rock is widely used so stop bullshitting. I'm not changing widely to mean most. Widely does not mean that, so by replacing 'also' with 'widely', I'm not changing the meaning of the word. The support is in the sources I provided. I'm not contradicting myself, from my experiencing, inside Australia and the UK, and Raymondwinn said the USA as well, that Ayers Rock is the only name known (except Australia where Ayers Rock is just the usual). Although we aren't sources, flight and holiday providers, both domestic and international, show that it is used more often. I'm not even putting in that it is used more often, but that it is used by a lot of people, which is correct. Uluru is the PC term, so what's your point? Saying that it is widely known as Ayers Rock does not mean it is an official or former name (it is the former official name). It does not even give that impression either, so that's bullshit. Widely means it is used by a lot of people, I don't see how anybody could interpret it as anything else. Paul's results show it is used by a lot of people, which is the definition of 'widely'. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course you have contradicted yourself. You said as the very first comment in this discussion that "The most used name is Ayers Rock." and continued to make this argument. Do you now deny this? See for yourself. You don't even seem to understand that BOTH Uluru and Ayers Rock are STILL official names - which is the essential fact and why "widely" is erroneous - even though this has already been explained to you. So I think it's obvious who is being "ridiculous" and "bullshitting" - and it ain't me babe! Your latest comments exemplify invincible ignorance, special pleading and argumentum ad lapidem. Afterwriting (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't deny it, I never said Ayers Rock is not the most used name, so you're trying to make contradictions out of thin air. Why is 'widely' erroneous? It is used by a lot of people, that is the definition of widely, sources show that it is used by a lot of people. Case closed? Crzyclarks (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that you're not understanding the problem. "Widely" introduces a point of view, however small it may be. "Also known as" is completely neutral, which is why it is the prescribed method of introducing alternative names in articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Shall we have a vote? Believe it or not, but I vote for widely. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not worth the bother - just think of all the useful edits that could have been accomplished instead of the back-and-forth above! Either word is fine, neither word is inaccurate or POV, so let's leave it and do something better. For example, what about the wording on the introductory sentence of the article about The Olgas - sorry, Kata Tjuta]? That says "... also known as ..."! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

... and Ayers Rock Airport says "also known as Connellan Airport"!!! I bet "previously known as" would be more accurate. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of articles that say something other than 'also', depending on circumstance. Judging by the definition of 'widely', I think this article should say widely. Just have a vote so we can put it to rest. Crzyclarks (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "widely known as Ayers Rock in culturally insensitive backwaters"? --PeterJeremy (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And that's the reason people are heated in this silly discussion: Some see "widely" as secretly meaning "its real name is, despite what people say..." and some see "also" as meaning roughly the statement above. We have taken small words and draped invisible insults over them that don't really exist. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but I just want accuracy. An encyclopaedia is supposed to be accurate and report on the facts, rather than censor them. How about it says 'widely', but mentions that some see 'Ayers Rock' as insensitive to aborigines? Crzyclarks (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I waited 3 days before making the change, now it's been undone. Any objections to wording it as I did in my recent edit? Crzyclarks (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You have no consensus add it. Bidgee (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking for objections. I'll wait 2 or 3 days for objections and see if it is to be added. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I still object to the use of the word "widely", and looking above, there are certainly objections that have been expressed. The wording should not be reintroduced until and unless those objections are repealed and consensus changes. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)We have been over it before and there is no consensus for the use of "widey". Bidgee (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why I think adding that some see 'Ayers Rock' as insensitive to Aborigines is a compromise of sorts, that will allow 'widely' to be added, because some people here see 'widely' as biased against using Uluru as the name. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a compromise, it is you trying to force your point of view that doesn't have a consensus. Bidgee (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Some people here think that saying 'widely' is biased against using 'Uluru' as the name, so this is a compromise by saying that some see using 'Ayers Rock' is insensitive to aborigines. I think this keeps the neutrality of the article, whilst not censoring the facts. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly object to adding "widely" for a number of reasons. It is not needed for any significant reason of clarity and would only add unecessary confusion and questioning about the legitimacy of the name "Uluru" in some readers' minds. The "facts" are that it is known as "Uluru" AND ALSO "Ayers Rock". That is all that is needed to state the facts. A good editing principle is always the "KISS" principle - "Keep It Simple Stupid". Afterwriting (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, they are both official names, both legitimate, but with Ayers Rock being used more often. Undoubtably widely used. The statement that "some see Ayers Rock as insensitive to aborigines" confirms the legitimacy of Uluru, not to mention that the name Uluru is the only name used throughout the article. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I should also address the statement of facts. The problem with the article right now, is that it uses Uluru throughout and has renegaded 'Ayers Rock' as a name not really in use. Since that is not the current status of the name, using the word 'widely' will accurately reflect its usage (if you ignore that 'Ayers Rock' is more widely used). Using just the word 'widely' to mean "a lot of people" instead of most people, is not as accurate as I think it could be, but is still more factual than the current word 'also', combined with the absence of 'Ayers Rock' in the rest of the article. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The history of the use of the two names is adequately explained in the article. You are still asserting that "Ayers Rock" is more commonly used without any evidence to support this claim. If you have any evidence based on reliable research - instead of the pseudo "evidence", such as tourism websites, that you have so far provided - then either provide it or else stop making such unverified and tedious claims about the "facts". Afterwriting (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is to ignore that Ayers Rock is more often used. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to find any hard evidence presented in any reliable source that documents the claim that "Ayers Rock is more often used." What I have found is that both are frequently used and it will take some rather sophisticated research, which apparently has not yet been done, to determine which name is actually the most frequently used.

In case of Earth scientists, I looked at GEOREF and found, as noted above, more hits for "Ayers Rock" than "Uluru." However, this is misleading because this search included numerous papers published prior to 1993. If a person looks at post-2008 citations for Earth science publications, a person finds that "Uluru" has clearly replaced "Ayers Rock" in terms of usage by Earth scientists. With one exception, the post-2008 papers, which I have read exclusively use "Uluru" with "Ayers Rock" being mentioned once only as an alternative name. As of 2012, Earth scientists, including well-known Australian geologists - geomorphologists, i.e. Dr. C. R. Twidale, now overwhelmingly and almost exclusively use "Uluru" in scientific publications. I would not be surprised to find that same change in usage has occurred among biologists and other scientists in other scientific publciations. Paul H. (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It currently stand at 3v4... can we have a vote of sorts, to see whether to change it or not? Crzyclarks (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

theres no need for a vote please read WP:SYNTH what you are arguing is that because you can find a number of sites that use Ayers Rock it therefore is widely used. Even though we can all do the same search and make our own conclusions we cant do that in the article as that is creating a synthesis by drawing together multiple sources and reaching a conclusion. That use of "Also known as.." doesnt make any conclusion about the usage it just states that "Ayers Rock" is another usage, it should actually say previously known as since its name was change 20 years ago. Gnangarra 04:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need for a vote and that "also known as" is the appropriate wording. But I should also point out that it is still officially known by both names but that "Uluru" now has official precedence. The fact that both names are officially used is another reason why "widely known as" is not only unecessary but also misleading. Afterwriting (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Google stats given by Paul H above do not support the claim that "Ayers Rock" is more widely used. I agree with Gnangarra, Afterwriting, etc. that "also known as Ayers Rock" is the best wording. --99of9 (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not more widely, just widely. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree the stats demonstrate that "Ayers Rock" is used in a significant number of articles on the face of it a conclusion can be drawn to justify "widely" but someone needs to take those stats and make a conclusion as editors we cant because thats called original research. <or warning>In a broad sense this is my original research most scholarly articles about Uluru also contain the term "Ayers Rock" because the historical sources they referenced called it that. Non scholarly reliable sources use one or the other dependent on the purpose of the publication though the more recent the source the more likely the use of Uluru alone</or warning>. The use of the word "widely" unattributed to a reliable source is called a WP:PEACOCK term, we avoid those and let the verifiable facts speak for themselves. Gnangarra 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a "peacock term" in an introduction - any more than is the use of the word "large" without any reliable source in the same sentence. Not enough editors believe it's accurate to be used, but it's not the sort of thing that WP:PEACOCK covers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

An alternative metric is that the traditional land owners who have been in the area for over 10,000 years have always called it Uluru compared "Ayers Rock" which was used to name it only 139 years ago. This metric actually makes Ayers Rock an insignificant name that doesnt even warrant mentioning as per WP:WEIGHT Gnangarra 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that the number of people who have used the name "Ayers Rock" in 135-ish years, due to population growth and mass communications, is almost certainly more than the total who had used Uluru in the tens of thousands of years of the pre-European-settler era. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I vote strongly for Ayers Rock. It is by far the most common name. I have only seen Uluru in parenthesis other than on this page. We don't call Munich Muenchen, so why should we call Ayers Rock Uluru? OttomanJackson (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong argument, my friend: "Munich" is the English version of "Muenchen," whereas "Ayers Rock" is an alternative to "Uluru". A better parallel would be "Sandwich Islands" and "Hawaii", a non-English word - although history has decided that one. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I suggest Bombay and Calcutta as parallels as well. Gnangarra 23:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, Calcultta just gives "or" between the two names (with Calcutta second), but Bombay uses "formerly" between the two (Bombay second), and that word is linked to Renaming of cities in India, which is an interesting article - although linking "formerly" to it is not at all transparent and poor linking policy. Think I'll change it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wording issues again

Crzyclarks1 has again changed the wording of the lead from "Uluru (English pronunciation: /ˌuːluːˈruː/), also known as Ayers Rock" to "Uluru (English pronunciation: /ˌuːluːˈruː/), or Ayers Rock" per another article on a unrelated location. "also known as" is widely used in Australian articles and it also addresses the fact that the location has two (or more) names, with the main (common) name being the lead (title), "or" is really meaningless and confuses the situation of the name. Bidgee (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I used "or" because it's often used on Wikipedia and it's more neutral than "also known". I hardly think you can quote "also known as" (can you?) from Australian articles as justification for the wording. "or" addresses the fact that it has two names and I dispute that the most common name is Uluru. It's obvious that Ayers Rock is the most common name, undoubtably so outside Australia, and I think in as well. I'd like to know how "or" is meaningless and confuses the situation of the name. Crzyclarks1 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That is your POV which you keep pushing without backing up with reliable sources. Just because other articles (page linked is more about AfD's but the same principal with arguments on wording of content) doesn't mean it will work here. So far you're the only editor here to push the view and other have disagreed with it. Just noticed that you shouldn't even be editing Wikipedia since your other account was blocked and then you created a new one to sock! Bidgee (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've provided lots of reliable sources. It does work here, I can't see any reason why it doesn't and you haven't provided one. Lots of people agree with me regarding the name. "or" isn't as good as "widely", but it's a fair compromise. Everybody uses two socks, using one doesn't make sense. Crzyclarks1 (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

User has been blocked as a suspected (really, an admitted) sockpuppet of User:Crzyclarks. Regarding the above, there's no evidence here of "lots of people" agreeing, and I'm particularly perplexed by the "Everybody uses two socks" statement...some people wear flip-flops! (Seriously, I hope you aren't stating you have another account lurking.) — Huntster (t @ c) 02:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I was confused about why this was such a heated discussion until I got about 3/4ths of the way down, then it was spelled out- it stopped being politically correct to call Ayer's Rock 'Ayer's Rock', so now, no matter how many people call it that, it will always be Uluru to wikipedia, because you know, wikipedia is neutral. I think it's hilarious that somebody would ask for a peer-reviewed source to prove that something is commonly called by two names. Surely, even the person making the insanely unreasonable demand knew so. What would that even look like? If I wanted to 'prove' that "Caribbean" has two common pronunciations, how the hell would I go about it? Travel information seems like a perfectly legitimate source, and I doubt anybody would question it for an instant. That is, if you don't have some bizarre political motivation to insist on more. Uccisore (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed the discussion appears to be one common-sense individual arguing against PC-pushers. Unfortunately, PC-pushers fail to see their viewpoints as POV since they have PC on their side. Rip-Saw (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Really it's not. I'm Australian, don't regard myself as a PC-pusher but I'd think Uluru has moved ahead of Ayer's Rock as the preferred name by most people. Certainly when I was younger (in the 1980s) it was pretty much unheard of to say Uluru and anything other than Ayers Rick made you look like some sort of lefty nutter but in the last 10 years or so it's changed. Oh and using Qantas as an example is probably not ideal - the airport they fly to is called Ayers Rock so it's understandable they'd prefer that name. Anyway just my 2c... Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rip-Saw, that this is a case of PC Wikipedia SJWs rewriting the truth of what this place was known as to most Australians and the wider world. To state, as the article currently does that it was known as both names since 1873 is misleading and untrue. It was Ayers Rock. The end.78.19.37.186 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your IP is registered to Dublin, so I'm not as to why you're claiming an intimate knowledge of what name Australians use for the rock (which, for your information, is Uluru). IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of "long"

A chain handhold added in 1964 and extended in 1976 makes the hour-long climb easier, but it is still a long (800 m/0.5 mi) and steep hike to the top

800 meters is "long"? This doesn't sound right. I suggest that instead of using ambiguous language (long time or long distance), editors focus on explaining that even though it is only 800 meters, it still takes a long time to climb. It would help to specify the average time range based on conditions. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps change the wording to "...but it is still a steep, 800 m (0.5 mi) hike to the top." and remove the "long" entirely. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Huntster (t @ c) 04:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation Needed: "An agreement ... was later broken."

Under history there is the following sentence "An agreement originally made between the community and Prime Minister Bob Hawke that the climb to the top by tourists would be stopped was later broken." Says who? How can such a charged statement not be referenced! I think this article needs to be unprotected so that its most basic aspects (such as verifiability) can be corrected by the community.

REPLY: I have added a couple of online references to the statement in the article. I believe this subject is also covered in Phillip Toyne's 1987 book, Growing up the Country: The Pitjanjatjara Struggle for Their Land, but I seem to have lost my copy. Can anyone else help out here with this or other references to the breaking of the 10-point plan which had previously been agreed to by PM Bob Hawke?John Hill (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the the two refs just added by John Hill - the first was to a blog site, and the other didn't mention Uluru at all. Better refs are needed. Bahudhara (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Climb to be closed.

I can't edit the article, so if somebody could note in the "climbing" section that the climb is to be closed from 2019, it would be good.

Citation: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-01/uluru-climbs-banned-after-unanimous-board-decision/9103512

210.84.2.165 (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Uluru. 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/20071028194412/http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/uluru/nature-science/geology.html to http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/uluru/nature-science/geology.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/uluru/culture-history/culture/creation.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The name is Uluru!

Having lived among and worked with the Mutitjulu Community for some years before and after handback of title to the Aboriginal Traditional Owners in 1985, I can assure you that the correct and official name of the Rock is Uluṟu, the original, ancient Aboriginal name. John Hill (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Just saw a tourism ad for the NT on TV. It mentioned Uluru several times. It did not mention Ayers Rock at all. HiLo48 (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, so much flapdoodle over what to call a big rock in the middle of nowhere. I must say that strictly speaking it doesn't have a _name_, it's just _called_ Ayers Rock or Uluru by various members of a peculiar species of primate; when humans are extinct, it will still be there, nameless as it has been for billions of years and none the worse for it.

I only came here out of curiosity about "Ayers Rock", and was surprised and displeased to see "Uluru" as the article's title. What is an "uluru"? From the article, it's a word made up by a local tribe, admittedly describing a unique and interesting part of the scenery. How "original" and "ancient" is this word? 500 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years? I an unaware of any paleolinguistic studies of the Aboriginal languages, though I'm sure there are some going on. I hope so, anyhow.

Not being a member of the local tribe in question, I have no problem with them calling it whatever they like; I do object being told that I have to stop calling it by its internationally well-known title "Ayers Rock". As well demand I stop calling water "water" and start calling it "agua" instead. Perhaps we can just say that "Uluru" is a word in one language for the English phrase "Ayers Rock", as "agua caliente" is Spanish for the English phrase "hot water".

BTW I notice that this site's spellchecker labels "Uluru" as being a misspelled word. Indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumpty17 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)/span>

You can call it whatever you like. We will continue to call it Uluru. And it's probably your web browser that doesn't like the spelling, not Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is "We"? I can asure you almost no one in Europe has ever heard of Uluru.

All the European backpackers and other tourists I've seen there over the past few years have. All signage in the area says "Uluru". Some signs help those who haven't kept up with things by putting "Ayers Rock" in brackets as well. See http://mytravelinaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/road-sign-Alice-Springs.jpg HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We English speakers outside of Australia, in the US specifically, have known it historically as Ayers rock and we comprise quite a large number of English speakers. This is the name of what most sources have taught us (it may be different now because of PC-inclination). It is mentioned in many PBS, BBC, and National Geographic documentaries as Ayers Rock. This is what people outside of Australia have known it as at least for decades. I am upset that a small number of people feel like they have the authority to dictate we use Uluru because of PC reasons as if the Aboriginals own this rock. This makes me upset in the same manner as the starfish/seastar issue. Call it what you want in your local language, but I think its English Wikipedia name should be the most commonly referred to English name in line with Wikipedia guidelines and any esoterical or local names be mentioned in parenthesis. 2607:FB90:428:3B41:0:46:D11D:1801 (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

its obvious Uluru hasn't yet established itself as the English name for it which is why many people are arguing against its use. 2607:FB90:428:3B41:0:46:D11D:1801 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is a "PC" issue by "a small number of people" then you are seriously mistaken and ignorant. Afterwriting (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously mistaken, yes, but nobody who uses a great sort-of-word like "esoterical" can be considered ignorant. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to agree with the IP but this is irrelevant when you don't back it up.

What a nice way to display your lack of arguments. Personal attacks for the win.

OTOH, in writing "as if the Aboriginals own this rock", it seems that the IP hasn't really read the article thoroughly - they do! Under Native Title, ownership of the rock was given back to the local Aboriginal Pitjantjatjara people - way back in 1985! Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is entirely ridiculous in itself. I was taught in school that Aborigines rejected the concept of possesion and lived in harmony with nature. So how can they "own" a rock? Nature is not "owned" by anyone.

What you were taught in school was wrong - see Native title in Australia. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Fatalities

@Bahudhara: Maybe you missed it, two minutes before you re-reverted me I realized my mistake and added a new source for the 37th fatality to replace the spammy ref. Daß Wölf 04:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Daß Wölf, Sorry, I did miss the intervening edit, and since the ABC News ref you added is better than the one you replaced, I've now changed it back. But what is it with your "WP:REFSPAMming campaign which I'm mass-reverting and replacing refs" against "www.9news.com.au"? Please be aware that Nine.com.au is a RS, and with its proposed merger (announced last week) with Fairfax Media will become "Australia's largest media company", with substantial journalism assets. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Size is independent of reliability. Rupert Murdoch has a gigantic empire across the English speaking world, and I regard many of his outlets as almost useless for anything except sports results. Nine certainly doesn't have a perfect record either. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Refspam of 9news.com.au. Editors with "nine" or "nine network" at the end of their username making dozens or hundreds of edits, 90% of which consist of adding newsy blurbs for recent events with Nine network as the reference certainly qualifies as spam to me. We wouldn't be doing ourselves a favour by letting this behaviour go unchecked even for the best RS, which this isn't. Daß Wölf 18:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf, sorry, it wasn't clear from your initial edit summary that you were undoing refspamming by a specific editor - I didn't go back far enough into the edit histories to see what was going on. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries :) Daß Wölf 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Anangu or Pitjantjatjara people?

Who are the local people? Beginning of article says "Uluru is sacred to the Anangu, the Aboriginal people of the area." Next paragraph says "The local Pitjantjatjara people call the landmark Uluṟu (Aboriginal pronunciation: [uluɻu])."

Somewhat confusing. Clarification? Garth M (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The aboriginal peoples collectively call themselves Anangu; the people who reside in the Uluru region are called Pitjantjatjara. I've tried to clarify it in the prose. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hunster is incorrect; the local tribe is Anangu and the broader group with similar language (covering much of central and NW Australia) are Pitjantjatjara. (122.106.207.125 (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

Mainstream perspective is ignored

This article describes the significance of the rock to the Anangu tribe and contains some scientific information about the geology, climate etc., but what about the significance of the rock to mainstream Australian culture? Are the previous editors unaware or is it somehow considered inappropriate to even mention the well known fact that Ayers Rock/Uluru has extreme significance to Australian culture in general, not just one subset of society? Ayers Rock/Uluru is to Australia what the Grand Canyon is to USA or Mount Fuji is to Japan. However, anyone reading this article would think that it's just an obscure, insignificant yet beautiful rock that really only matters to a single isolated tribe. Sure, its UNESCO World Heritage status is stated in one instance, but this is not explained and is all the more reason to describe its wider significance. Even the hundreds of other Aboriginal tribes are ignored; apparently only the Anangu are concerned. In actuality, the reverence attached to this rock by most (if not all) Aborigines is comparable to Huangshan (Yellow Mountain) for China or the Temple Mount for Jews and Muslims. Back to my original point though, Aborigines or the Anangu in particular do not have a monopoly over nature and are not the only people who attach special significance to this world heritage site, nor was this the basis of it being designated as a world heritage site. (122.106.207.125 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

Can you please describe exactly what changes you would like to see made, with suitable sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean do all the work myself? No. Besides, why would I go to all that effort just for a talk page discussion? I may as well edit the article myself in such case. (122.106.207.125 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC))

Well, feel free to do so, assuming you have the sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Climbing Uluru is Vandalism to its Indigenous Owners

The section on "Climbing Uluru" requires some serious discussion. It is presented from a white American viewpoint while the Indigenous needs are treated as a tacked-on adjunct. This is also not a travel article, and health advice on climbing Uluru is again another promotion to disrespect the local language clan who have always owned Uluru. This section is presented in an anachronistic manner. The local tribe always owned Uluru - that needs to be written as the first sentence. Handrails, for example, were dug into Uluru during a time when Indigenous Australians had no human rights. Therefore that fact needs to be highlighted early when presenting information on the development of tourism on this sacred religious site, and the subsequent hand back with non-binding clauses. Especially when its traditional owners had been corralled into a slum camp within view of their religious icon, and have been seconded there ever since. Those people in that slum camp are still suffering from the effects of social exclusion. They are ill and they die young even so Aboriginal Australians were allowed to be counted as citizens in censuses from 1967 onwards. There are many more issues for the authors of this section to consider, but are lacking culturally appropriate insight as they are not Indigenous, and not even Australian. I prefer Indigenous representation is included in the discussion and production of knowledge of Aboriginal significance. Social inclusion is the norm in Australian governance structures over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.43.64 (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous Australians had no concept of landownership. It is correct to point out that they are native to the area and whites aren't, but they were not owners of it either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.89.158.97 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect, see Native title in Australia. Bahudhara (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Historians estimate that humans first came to the area around 30,000 BC and the Anangu tribe in particular around 3,000 BC, so the assertion that Aborigines "have always owned the rock" is frivolous from a historical perspective alone, even before one considers the logical quandary of who "owns" nature. Similarly, the OP apparently doesn't know the history of the handrail; the Aborigines themselves were instrumental in building the handrail. (122.106.207.125 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

Can you point us at a source for that claim please? HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, I get the feeling that you're only asking for a source to be argumentative. Nevertheless, for anyone who really does want to read more about this, what I said about the ancient history I read from a permanent display at the Wintjiri Art Gallery & Museum in Yulara. What I said about the handrail/chain I read in Quadrant Magazine in an article entitled "The Immortal Ayers Rock Climbing Ban", published on 18 April 2018. (122.106.207.125 (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC))

- I am intending to change this page in the future, largely because the information on the climbing ban is incorrect. Additionally the perspective and tone is disinfomative.

First off, if you have never been there, you are not interested in climbing mountains, or spending time in nature, you are not entitled to an opinion as I see it. That is the concept of a liberal democracy, that one respects individual groups. This issue does not affect you, and that makes it very easy to take the socially enforced view.

Uluru is not a man made structure. It is not a “place” nor is it an object like a metheroite etc. It’s a mountain. 3 square kilometres. It is perhaps the most iconic mountain in the world ahead of mount roraima, mount huangshan in China and Fuji in Japan. Partially because it is unique. There is nothing like it. Humans have revered mountains for millennia, as they do in the Himalayas, they have also climbed mountains for millennia. There is nothing unique in that sense about Uluru, and in my opinion it belongs to all human kind.

Should we respect the local aboriginals? Absolutely. But this issue has little to do with the facts of Uluru, but more about some attonement for sins of the past. Closing the climb will not bring back the millions who died from infectious diseases upon the arrival of Europeans. Nor will it restore the lives of the lost generations or turn back Australia’s landscape to the pristine rainforest it once had from today’s pastoral grazing grounds.

Let’s go through the facts, and the reasons given for closing the climb:

1.) respect for the mountain. Here there are two arguments, one that the anangu don’t want you to climb it due to some cultural reasons and the second that they according to their culture of hospitality would be distressed if you were to die as a guest in their land.

On the first point, this is hypocritical and factually wrong. Aboriginals have climbed the mountain up until recently and there is no historical documentation to support that they did not do so in the past. Moreover, they will still have the right to do so after the ban.

On the second point, the climb is pretty pedestrian and more of a walk. People are more likely to hurt themselves drowning in the pool than going for a walk. They don’t seem to have any issues with the potential dangers of the remaining facilities.

2.) health issues. The climb is much safer than comparable adventure sports. This is a bluff

3.) environmental issues. Here again there are two reasons given, wear and tear and people relieving themselves.

Wear and tear is true on any mountain that is climbed by people. If a particular issue at Uluru, it could be mitigated by rubber mats to walk on, similar to what they have elsewhere in the park. With regards to people relieving themselves,honestly this is an issue anywhere, please have some manners and respect. Ask people to do it before starting the climb and worst case put one up there if it does not work.

Finally, availability of other activities. There are hikes and walks available yes. But they are not comparable. It would be like trying to replace a trip to Empire State Building with a Michelin Star burrito truck outside. The other activities are nice but they do not compare, and they are more of an add on and less of a destination in themselves.

In conclusion, the close of the climb is a great loss to humanity and a travesty. The requirement of less than 20% climbing has been manipulated with fictitious numbers undue pressure to prevent people from climbing and onerous rules with regards to opening and access. Many countries have mandated access to nature or national parks, ensuring these gems are kept available to anyone.

Obviously I am not going to edit the page to reflect my opinion but I do think it needs a more balanced and factual approach . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.12.198 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Lake Moawhango?

What's the connection to Lake Moawhango? That lake was added to the hatnote about similar-named articles, but I see nothing in it that relates to the name Uluru or Ayer. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The island "Ayers Rock" in Lake Moawhango does have an entry in the LINZ database, so it does exist, and I'm inclined to leave it in the hatnote for Uluru. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in the Lake Moawhango article, however, so the connection is hidden to readers. Can you add it there? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It was already mentioned in the Lake Moawhango article, but wasn't referenced, so I added the ref to that article before adding the comment above. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

To the point: geological genesis

What interests most scientifically-minded people is its genesis: how did it become this massive, rounded hill detached from the surrounding plains and from any ridge or other prominent landscape feature. This should be elaborated further, but at least get its own paragraph.

The genesis should also be included, in a short sum-up, into the lead: granite mountains get eroded, resulting in sand, carried down by rivers which deposit the sand; the sand is petrified into sandstone; the sandstone layers get tilted and are eroded in non-uniform ways, leaving behind this inselberg rising high above the surroundig, eroded lowlands (this latter part needs better explaining: why was only this area less eroded?). Arminden (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Error in the 'Flora and Fauna' section

In the second paragraph of the section, it is stated that the mulgara is the only vulnerable mammal, which is not true. The editor likely meant that it was the only vulnerable mammal at the site, which is also not true, as the greater bilby is found at Uluru, and it is classified as vulnerable. All of that seems to me to be sufficient justification for the removal of this statement. Reywas85 (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done: see Special:Diff/922906788. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 02:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast! Reywas85 (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! Just good timing that you made your request right before I started going through them. NiciVampireHeart 05:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Climbing" should be more specific

The phrase "climbing" can mean many different types of activity. If it is going to be used to describe the activity/cause/etc that led up to and includes a ban enforced in the area, we need a more specific word. For example, an area may allow "hiking" but not "climbing." Jasphetamine (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're wanting here. The instance at Uluru meets the definition of "climb" exactly, and is the term universally used in reliable sources. It certainly isn't hiking or any other descriptive word I can think of, nor is any other term used in media. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

English Name: Ayers Rock, Pitjantjatjara Name: Uluru.

The name of this big rock is a matter of what language you use. Simply In English it's called Ayers Rock, In Pitjantjatjara it's call Uluru. Both name can coexist if properly educated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo1un (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? I have one for you - https://parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/ - It's the website for the national park containing the rock. All in English, and all about Uluru. No mention of Ayers Rock. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What you say is sensible but not the way wikipedia works these days. Among native speakers of English virtually all call Ayers Rock, Ayers Rock, certainly in both the UK and Australia the two countries I've lived in - outside the media one virtually never hears "Uluru" in English. Alas wikipedia in a rather circular way will use certain sources (some of which then use wikipedia to justify weird linguistic terms!) so if the government and a handful of media outlets decide to use "Uluru" to describe Ayers Rock, even when writing in English, then wikipedia will follow suit - and vice versa. It reads and sounds rather silly, like those pompous people who speak of Milano or Roma in English but that's how the rules play out and there's not much point worrying about it I feel - in the end it rather undermines wikipedia I fear but that's a debate for another day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:987:BB00:38A6:BC74:29A1:B000 (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

"Among native speakers of English virtually all call Ayers Rock, Ayers Rock..." Got a reliable source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't heard or seen it being called Ayers Rock in Australia for many years now. Nobody I know refers to it by that name - which actually sounds rather quaint and outdated now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

How weird. I'm a native of Melbourne and spend 6 months of every year there. Ayer's Rock is virtually always called by its English name and doesn't sound outdated or quaint at all. It certainly sounds weird when a white fella calls it "Uluru" - indeed we laugh at anyone who does as it sounds so weird when speaking English especially to those of us who grew up in Australia. Now my family and friends are all anglo, I don't know any aborigines and I don't speak aboriginal languages so I don't dispute that they might call it "Uluru" but among native English speakers, apart from those trying their best to be politically correct, the vast majority call it by its English name when speaking English. The same is true, to an even greater extent in the UK and USA and even in Europe. Of course now wikipedia has that weird circular logic, some official sources call it by the name "Uluru", so wikipedia does and some media now uses wikipedia as a source etc etc. Still we should be able to say 2+2=4 and whatever the government does it still has an English name. A similar thing is onging with Mt Cook in New Zealand. I can't help but notice the irony of someone demanding I offer a source for something and you then offer a "personal anecdote" that is so far fetached from reality one hardly knows where to begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:986:EB00:C599:237C:65B5:FBE (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Many years of life as an adult is all I was referring to. I don't dispute the government named it both English and Aboriginal name and that politically motivated people on here then choose to use the aboriginal name alone because it suits a certain agenda. However I reserve the right to be honest and speak frankly and we can point out when wikipedia has something rather silly - in this case a place that has a name that almost all native speakers of English know yet Wikipedia takes the "official line" (though only when it's convenient - they won't for example call Londonderry in Northern Ireland by its official name) - indeed much further as the official name actually includes the English name. With the current rules on wikipedia a certain "mob mentality" gets to control these things but I won't be bullied and will speak honestly and frnakly on this site that is supposed to be about collaboration and I am sure I've lived longer in Australia than anyone editing this page so I will offer my observation. And just to prove my point - google offer 15.6 million results for Ayer's Rock and 9.17 million for "Uluru". Not even close. Which is no surprise since native speakers will almost always use the English name - I mean ordinary people not travel writers, government officials or people on here. Normally google results are taken as a final impartial jdugement but something tells me on this page it won't be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:986:EB00:C599:237C:65B5:FBE (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has lived in Australia for most of my 67 years, I totally agree with Laterthanyouthink saying that, in Australia, usage of "Ayers' Rock" is now "rather quaint and outdated". Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing your personal opinions. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It was handed back to its traditional owners in 1985, renamed in 1993. There are numerous sources saying that it is referred to as Uluru within the park. The World Heritage Area is Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. If nothing else, you should be respecting the local name and language. Would you go to Germany and insist that they change all of their signs from München to Munich? End of a pointless discussion, for this editor. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

I am going to update the page. I will not vandalise this page. If there are any concerns please alert me on my talk page. Thanks! Indestructous231 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @Indestructous231. Seagull123 Φ 12:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Uluru Base Walk - Why this trip holds such a special place?

The Uluru Base walk is one of the most iconic short walks in Australia. It’s a flat mendering walk that stretches over a 10 km that follows the perimeter of Uluru. For the Anangu, the traditinal custodians of Uluru, it’s a place of great importance. There is much to learn about Uluru as many of it’s features form part of the law and creation stories for the Anangu. This is referred to as ‘Tjukurpa’. On the 26th October 2019, the Anungu and the Uluru & Kata Tjuta National Parks Management closed the climb. However, the base walk provides a wonderful experience for anyone that visits. For many visitors they recall a great sense of sense of aura and a real connection to Uluru. The information boards around Uluru also allows the visitors to learn about the cultural significance that Uluru has to the local people.

As one of Australia’s most sacred activities to experience, it is important to all travellers and tour operators that the Uluru Base Walk guidelines are properly adhered to.

Uluru Base Walk - Why This Trip Holds Such A Special Place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumpoll (talk • contribs) 04:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Uluru/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nkon21 (talk · contribs) 09:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing another one of your articles. Stay tuned. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Quick fail

Similar to the last GAN I reviewed for you, I'm going have to quick fail this because: 1) Multiple sourcing banners on the page; there are some entire sub-sections that are unsourced, 2) Again, you have not contributed enough to the article–only 2 edits logged to the page (although you added several new references but not enough content work), and 3) Not very broad in coverage, especially when the subject is one of the most iconic symbols of Australia.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you.—ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 15:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

talk page archive 3

the link to „archive 3“ of the talk page is not displayed to me in the archive overviee box —2003:C8:272A:D800:E952:1D4F:C9CE:F526 (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

thanks. I have added link now. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Climbing by Aboriginals

"The local Aṉangu do not climb Uluru because of its great spiritual significance" - This is disputable, because there's plenty of photos of them on top of the rock with a simple Google search.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.71.80 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

In the image caption, put a space before the scientific name of the rock-wallaby. 152.0.227.241 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the request. Vsmith (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Charles and Di, March 83. Uluru visit.JPG (discussion)
• Panaorama from on top of Uluru.jpg (discussion)
• TreesUpUluru.JPG (discussion)
• Uluru1 2003-11-21.jpg (discussion)
• Uluruwarning.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

Unique event! Clive Halliday and Marion Adams were married by Syd Quick, Methodist minister, Alice Springs, at dawn on top of the Rock in 1981. Accompanied by the bride's identical twin sister, her husband, and Bride's mother. 203.213.242.94 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 07:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Climate and five seasons

Into which climate section Piriyakutu or Mai Wiyaringkupai, does the month of October fall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.74.167 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Who cares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.176.240 (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

Bit of poor grammar in the Tourism section.

Change “Beginning in the 1940s, permanent European settlement of the area for reasons of the Aboriginal welfare policy and to help promote tourism of Uluru.”

To “Permanent European settlement of the area began in the 1940s under Aboriginal welfare policy and to promote tourism at Uluṟu.” Overocea (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Crime

I think the baby Azaria Chamberlain case should be added to this article103.246.36.31 (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

except it was not at ayers rock but Alice springs... other than both locations being in same state they are not related enough to be worthy of inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.119.55.164 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Azaria Chamberlain's disappearance DID happen at Ayers Rock (now Uluru). Have a read of Death of Azaria Chamberlain. There is already a link to that article in the See also section of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

nah she was camping in SA as part of the trip TO Ayers Rock but was far from it at the time. its an issue of bad reporting in the era. if you visit the zone you will learn there is no actual dingo's at ayers rock itself. 100k south is closest settlement. while her story is relevant for wider aus it bares little to no worthy connection to the actual structure from a enclopedia entry. i agree with it in the see also for people not familar with area but i wouldn't bother to put it into article about the structure itself.

also per the article itself for Uluru it is actually still ayers rock, true term is Ayers Rock/Uluru, they never removed Ayers rock from name legally and only tacked locals name for it to the end. out of respect for the aboriginals they refer to it only as uluru on site but all legal references to it is still Ayers Rock/Uluru 193.119.55.164 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't even look at Death of Azaria Chamberlain. Let's get more specific. Have a look at this. Here's a quote - "The Chamberlains arrived late on the night of August 16 at the Ayers Rock campground. The next morning, Michael and the two boys climbed portions of the rock. Lindy, cradling Azaria in her arms, explored a formation called Fertility Cave. Just outside the cave, she looked up uneasily to see a dingo staring at her. She would later tell a detective that she had the feeling that the wild dog was "casing the baby."

After sunset, the Chamberlain family gathered with other campers around the barbecues near their tent site. Lindy held her Azaria in her arms as she and Michael chatted with Greg and Sally Lowe, another young couple also vacationing with an infant. Around 8:00, as Sally Lowe walked to a rubbish bin to dispose of items left from the evening meal, she turned to see a dingo following four or five paces behind her. Minutes later, Michael entertained his son Aiden by tossing a crust of bread to a dingo that appeared near their barbecue bench. Lindy remonstrated, "You shouldn't encourage them" about the same time as the dingo pounced on a mouse that young Aiden had been chasing.

Lindy announced "It's time I put Bubby down" and retreated to the Chamberlain's tent to make a suitable bed for Azaria. Ten minutes later, having left Azaria with her sleeping brother, Reagan, in the tent, Lindy rejoined the rest of the campers by the barbecue bench. A baby's cry from the direction of the tent soon sent Lindy racing back to investigate. Then came her cry: "My God, My God, the dingo's got my baby!" HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

we are getting rather off topic so for fear of this turning personal and not remaining true to wikipedias goal i will end will just saying that the Ayers Rock campground is a different location and site to Ayers rock the landmark. names similar and clearly named for land mark but not actually same are and the camping ground cover a rather large region. as this article is about the monument not the local area i see the chamberlain murder case little more than a linked footnote as it is and not actually relevant to the monument or its history. after all we don't put the italian wars under the leaning tower of pisa. i get the original question asker was thinking along same lines as darwin and cycle tracey/ww2 bombing as historical events but its apples and oranges for landmarks.

i admit this is purely personal opinion and leave it to wiser moderators than myself if any worth while link to add to body of article exist. 193.119.55.164 (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If you truly want to become a useful contributor here, please learn to read and accept what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

This is, surely, a massively important article in terms of Australian Geography, Geology, Indigenous culture, Tourism,and Netionl identity. It is a pathetic article to exist in 2022, when Wikipedia has been up and running as long as it has. Take the section on Flora and fauna. The reader is told that there are 46 species of mammals, and then there is a list of those creatures that were once found in the area, and which it is considered might be re-introduced. But tell the reader what animals live there now. Is that too much to ask, from an article that must have existed on these pages for at least twenty years? The next paragraph informs the reader about the presence of one single type of creature which even most Australians have not heard of. And there is also a list of feral animals. But tell me? Could I go to Uluru and photograph a kangaroo? Or not? Can somone who maintains this article, fix it? Amandajm (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Title change to Uluru / Ayers Rock

As the official gazetted name of the site is Uluru / Ayers Rock, I believe the title of this article should be changed to reflect this and to bring it up to article standards.

It should be changed to "Uluru (formerly known as Ayers Rock by the invaders)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.26.145 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(Smiles at the sarcasm in the above reply, then regains composure). Per WP:COMMONNAME, as it is usually only referred to as "Uluru" nowadays, that is the correct name for the article. The "official" name has no actual bearing on the article title. Turkey is officially "Republic of Türkiye", but that isn't where the article is. Nor is Australia at "Commonwealth of Australia". The official name is taken into account, and should always be mentioned in the article, along with any historical names, but really has no bearing on the title of the article. (Also per WP:COMMONNAME, and maybe some other policies too, "Uluru (formerly known as Ayers Rock by the invaders)" probably isn't quite suitable either). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is a sort of compromise: "Uluru (/ˌuːləˈruː/; Pitjantjatjara: Uluṟu [ˈʊlʊɻʊ]), also known as Ayers Rock (/ˈɛərz/ AIRS) and officially gazetted as Uluru / Ayers Rock," but if it is officially named Uluru / Ayers Rock, then it should be referred to in the name of the article as Uluru / Ayers Rock and the initial sentence can actually remain exactly as it is and as I just quoted it. Mutual charity does not require either that it keep repeating the dualism throughout, it can subsequently use only Uluru, but it also doesn't require either the trite sarcasm of the above suggestion OR using only one of its official names in the article title. If 'the invaders' were to someday leave and take all their stuff, their nomenclature can go too. Random noter (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

On reflection, Mako001's comment makes a lot of sense and I defer if it is usually known only as Uluru "these days", though it does open up some wider Wikipedia issues. I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is always a trailing indicator when these kinds of nomenclature changes come up, which it should be. And the examples that editor uses can be open to question if the legal name of a thing and the common name don't always refer to the exact same concept. Arguably, "France" and "French Republic" would not. Perhaps only a curiosity. Random noter (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)