Talk:Mount Sugarloaf (New South Wales)

Australia: New South Wales Low‑importance

	Australia portal Mount Sugarloaf (New South Wales) 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	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.

Not a volcano[edit]

All the geological maps I have seen show that Mt Sugarloaf is not an extinct volcano, but a northeastern outlier of Triassic Narrabeen sandstone. So I am therefore removing all references to volcanos. 70.64.14.19 (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you mean this Mount Sugarloaf and not the one in Victoria, which is sandstone? As I indicated in this edit summary, the public lookout is at the top of the exposed volcanic plug. While there is sandstone throughout the Sugarloaf ranges, the mountain itself is not sandstone, especially the plug. If you can find a citation that says it's not volcanic please do so but don't delete, add {{citation needed}} if you wish to challenge. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Sorry, perhaps it was too hasty of me. Cheers 128.233.98.215 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to see a citation that states it is a volcano (or even contains volcanic material). I have seen several non-scholarly websites (such as www.righthealth.com) referring to it as an extinct volcano, but not a single reliable source. By contrast, you can check for yourself the Sydney Basin map here: [[1]].

70.64.14.19 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are at least two Mount Sugarloaves in Victoria (one of which is indeed volcanic). 70.64.14.19 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the Mount Sugarloafs (name doesn't change to "Sugarloave" even if there are two) at this point. As I explained earlier, the public viewing platform is located on the exposed volcanic plug, of which about 7 metres are exposed, the cone having eroded long ago. I checked the Sydney Basin map, which is not precise by any means, and it doesn't prove that the mountain isn't volcanic, only that there is a significant quantity of sandstone in the area. The viewing platform is most definitely not sandstone. I'll try to take some photos on Wednesday. Or you could just drive up there yourself. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's be clear about this.

I am not trying to prove that Mount Sugarloaf (NSW) consists entirely of sandstone and does not contain volcanic material. I did not claim so in my edit of the article. It is you who has made the opposite claim in the article, so the burden of proof is upon you to provide a reliable source that states so. So far, you have not done so, but merely have given anecdotal evidence, which makes it impossible for me to disprove anything. If you cannot find such a source, then the article should read simply "mountain" to avoid being misleading.

Also, even if it does contain volcanic material, this does not automatically make it an extinct volcano. (For example, consider the dyke in Nobbys Head or the basalt cap on Mount Banks - neither of them are volcanos.)

I will be happy to believe you once I see a proper citation.70.64.14.19 (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a volcano... every piece of stone and boulder is SANDSTONE.

While various bluffs and outcrops at the coast show sandstone affected by heat, and the occassional basalt dyke here and there showing the source of the heat... No such on Mount Sugarloaf... its all unaffected sandstone.

The brilliant colours of the sandstone at Terrigal show how it was affected by heat... there's dyke's in the rock platform to explain it.

Nobbie's has a dyke in it, the cliff of King Edward Park has a peculiar soil... Tuff ! Volcanic ash.

But the sugarloaf range is an extension of the Watagans.. the Gap has just eroded faster than the ridge line .. Volcanoes do not make ranges.

You can see a picture of the rock at top of sugarloaf... look at that conglomerate.. was the volcano spitting out shells, pebbles and sand ?

Ah so what protected the top of Sugarloaf (and Mt Vincent) from weathering ? Conglomerate is harder than sandstone..erodes slower...

http://wildwalks.com/bushwalking-and-hiking-in-nsw/watagans/mt-sugarloaf-summit.html

220.233.121.43 (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is most definitely NOT correct that "every piece of stone and boulder is SANDSTONE". Granted, I haven't been up there since the discussion 5 years ago, but I'm pretty sure that the rock types haven't mysteriously transformed over this period. While volcanoes may not make ranges, they aren't precluded from being part of a range. I don't see the relevance of Nobbys (not "Nobbie's"). Note that there is no apostrophe in the name either. And where did you get "Conception Hill" as a name?[2] There is no such place in NSW and the change you made removed one of the two valid names that are cited in the article.[3][4] --AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Events[edit]

no mention of the grout streams or the environmental damage earlier in 2013? Lots of pictures and passing the buck with who to blame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]