Talk:Hamersley Range

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Australia: Western Australia Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Hamersley Range is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Mountains Low‑importance

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hamersley Range. 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:

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) 15:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juukan Gorge new article?

Others and I have been adding bits to this article, Australian Aboriginal sacred site, and at Rio Tinto (corporation)#Juukan Gorge. As this incident and its ramifications are likely to continue for a while, I'm thinking that maybe it needs its own article where one main source of the detail can be maintained, with just a brief summary paragraph from each of the other articles. What do people think? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've posted the same thing on all three talk pages, but discussion is probably best kept in one place - maybe at Talk:Rio Tinto (corporation)#Juukan Gorge main coverage, as there are other discussions with links there that could be useful. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. As already noted in the article, prior to its destruction the site had been described as being of "the highest archaeological significance in Australia". That alone should make for it being a stand-alone article. But the additional story of its destruction and then the consequent sackings of top level executives at Rio Tinto add to the noteworthiness of the subject. I'd actually just suggest being bold and going ahead straight away with the split. I was going to do it myself before I saw your note saying you opened this discussion. I can't think of any reason why such a significant site would not be justified in having its own article. Oska (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oska. Assuming no objections, I'll get to it some time in the not-too-distant... (But feel free to start without me, you or anyone else!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laterthanyouthink I didn't see any action on creating a new page since September, so I went ahead and created it. Would be great to add some more info and a photo if there's one that can be used? I'll delete most of the copied content from this page and just leave the link to the main Juukan Gorge article. MMc (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for that, MMc. I'll take a look at it and perhaps revisit at greater length later, but have my hands full with other stuff I'm trying to get to the end of at the moment (got distracted from Juukan, so much else to do!).

Slight Mis-Information on the Highest Peaks in WA

In the article, it states "The twenty highest peaks in Western Australia are in the Hamersley Range", referencing this from the WA government: https://www0.landgate.wa.gov.au/maps-and-imagery/wa-geographic-names/interesting-wa-facts

While it does state this, it is most probably wrong, since the measurement of Bluff Knoll is out my 20 metres (1073->1095). Source: https://exploreparks.dbca.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-05/stirling-range-national-park-visitor-guide.pdf The page on here has it listen at 1099, but the 1073 measurement was from Morphet in 1996, and the current height is 1095.

I found another source which has Bluff Knoll as the 13th highest mountain, but its measurement is also out, but by a lesser factor.http://www.bonzle.com/c/a?a=f&sc=h&st=5&cmd=sp&mo=36728724 *Note that this isn't a secure source*

It could be changed to 'Ten highest peaks' or '19/20 of the highest peaks'. The first option would be better since it is basically confirmed, and there is also a chance that Toolbrunup, also from the Stirling Ranges, is the 20th highest peak. Berg998 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]