Talk:Tor (rock formation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disambiguation[edit]

Given the huge number of meanings for Tor (see TOR), it's pretty clear to me that the contents of this page should ultimately be moved to Tor (geology) and that Tor should become a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions). My apologies to Solipsist if I was too quick on the draw when I "plowed ahead" in a similar direction a while back (he seems to be the only person offended by my previous attempt to Wikipedia:Be bold (see "Disambiguation or not" below).

Before we do that, though, it would be nice to correct any references to tor in the geologic or geographic context so that they point to tor (geology)

--Nil0lab 04:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People wishing to help with this process can refer to this list of articles pointing to Tor --Nil0lab 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. --SyntaxError55 talk 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed about 40 of them, someone else could continue that work. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This topic was closed long ago. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation or not[edit]

> # (cur) (last) 09:15, 1 August 2006 Blisco (Talk | contribs) (Tor (geography) is the most common meaning - look at incoming links)

> # (cur) (last) 11:50, 29 June 2006 213.119.142.192 (Talk) (Redirecting to Tor (disambiguation))

> # (cur) (last) 17:54, 24 May 2006 Blisco (Talk | contribs) (Redirect to primary meaning, Tor (geography))

> # (cur) (last) 17:51, 24 May 2006 Blisco (Talk | contribs) (moved Tor to Tor (disambiguation): The rocky hill is the primary meaning, as evidenced by the links to this page.)

Hi Blisco.

The geographical meaning may be the most common one in your experience, but the piece of software is the most common in mine, and is certainly a lot more famous at this point. Topic bigotry does not belong in wikipedia. If multiple definitions are valid, a disambiguation page is in order, even if one is more common or popular than the others (and you haven't really made that case).

As to your point about links to tor: if the links are are mostly from geographical references, then *they* should be fixed'.

--Nil0lab 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's just not the way Wikipedia works. If there are already a large number of links to one meaning of word, in this case Tor as a hill, that's a strong indication that that is the primary meaning. Please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Solipsist 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, not only are you claiming consensus (not here but on your message on my talk page) that's not documented (Talk:Tor was empty when I got here) but you even changed the quite reasonable redirect to tor (geographical) and moved the whole article here. Big brass ones you have. I guess geography must be your end all and other more modern uses are to be shoved aside. Naming conventions are fine, but one discipline cannot just call "dibs" on an archaic word just because they fleshed out the namespace first- archaic usages fall into disuse, perhaps sooner in some places than others- all common usages deserve to be represented. If there really was a discussion that reached a consensus, point me to it. Given your message on my talk page, it seems clear you are prone to exaggeration, so I suspect you've overstated.--Nil0lab 06:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. Looking at the page histories, it looks like the various page histories have been bounced around due to prior page moves. Its now a bit of a mess. Some of the prior discussion is at Talk:Tor (geography), but I recall there was also a prior page move request that should have been archived. Not sure where that has gone. -- Solipsist 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. It's been a while and I don't see anyone else supporting your "there is a consensus" position. Any yes, I looked for the items you referred to. --Nil0lab 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has moved several times this past year and it has finally regained its place at Tor, best thing to do is merge all histories into this one. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

The picture is a bit dark and lacking detail. There must be a better one, surely? Totnesmartin 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried editing the picture, but there really is a sharp contrast between the clear sky and dark ground. I can upload a new version but the stone deposit ont top looses its shade. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation [again][edit]

Kyorosuke made the "disambiguation statement" above Tor only point to Tor (disambiguation), but Tor as an anonymity network is the other only main definition of Tor, and you have to scroll down quite a bit on the aforementioned disambiguation page to even get to The Onion Router.

If it was up to me, I'd just have this page point to Tor (disambiguation) and this page moved to Tor (geology) (instead of Tor (geology) redirecting here) as mentioned above. :D --SyntaxError55 talk 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, the vast majority of people who aren't Wikipedia editors have never heard of Tor (anonymity network). Hell, I'd wager that more people have heard of Tor Johnson. It does not deserve special mention on this page -- the entire reason disambiguation pages exist is to allow people to find things that have similar names to the primary meaning of a word. The only reason it is mentioned here is because, apparently , there is a total lack of perspective on the importance of the subject of the article Tor (anonymity network). It may be the first thing certain people who happen to have a proclivity for editing Wikipedia think of, but it is decidedly not the meaning of the term that most people think of.--72.228.85.3 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if more people have heard of Tor Johnson than have heard of the geographic term, doesn't that indicate that Tor should be a disambiguation page? Anyway, the fact that some technologically illiterate and and privacy complacent are unaware of The Onion Network (which is a well known project supported by such disparate groups as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the US Naval Research Laboratory) does not diminish its important, even if you and your peer group consider the geographic term the only worthy term. --Treekids (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, have a regard for Wikipedia:No personal attacks there! As someone who has an interest in geography, geology and software (as a CITP I hope I'm not more than averagely "technologically illiterate and privacy complacent"), I did a bit of digging. It is difficult to tell from the Tor (anonymity network) article or the Tor Official Website how long this acronym has been in use, though it seems to date from 2004. The Wikipedia article about Tors as rock features dates from December 2001! Tor (from Old English) has been the name of many rock features and hills for a minimum of 920 years - one well-documented example is Torre (from which Torquay takes its name) - recorded in the Domesday Book in 1086. Tors have been objects of geomorphological controversy for at least 50 years (see for example Linton). Outside academic circles, the huge numbers of holiday visitors to areas such as Dartmoor will be well aware of tors such as Haytor. Pterre (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man what is this? A page about some place I've never heard of? What happened to the tor page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.50.100 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxall Tor?[edit]

Can anyone provide evidence of this one? Pterre (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. Can't find it on any maps. Pterre (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/other uses yet again[edit]

An IP editor got into a bit of an edit war (and breached 3RR) in the past 24 hours by editing the {{two other uses}} template at the start of the page. I know this was discussed previously seeing the rest of this talk page but I don't see that any consensus was truly reached. So, under WP:BOLD, I changed the template to {{About}} which points straight to the disambig page. It would be nice if interested editors could chip in and see if some consensus can be reached on what (if any) other link the "other uses" template should point to. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on this edit - there are plenty of other meanings, there doesn't seem to be much point singling out just one for a direct link. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

The article claims that the word "tor" originated in the South West of England. Where is the evidence for this? Checking the online etymological dictionary doesn't reveal any evidence for this (noting it may not even be a Celtic word, but borrowed from Anglo Saxon). Given the large number of hills described as tors in the Peak District, Yorkshire Dales and even up into Cumbria (c.f. torpenhow, literally "hill hill hill"), how can we claim the word originated in the South West? DPMulligan (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the assertion - it can go back if a reputable source to back it up is found but that seems unlikely given the antiquity of the names given to similar features in parts of the Peak and Pennines for example. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC) ....not to mention Wales... Deipnosophista (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would mention that the word "tor" means hill or mountain in Aramaic, which is a Semitic language, and it is also found in Pashtun, where Tora Bora simply means Mount Bora.Neve Dan (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also to be borne in mind that "tor" is clearly related to "turris" (Latin) and τύρρις/τύρσις (Greek) meaning "tower" (source: Wiktionary. Chambers' dictionary also makes the connection). Deipnosophista (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geoography[edit]

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

Requested move[edit]

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 moved. "Tor" is now "Tor (rock formation)" as agreed by the participants in the final comment, and "Tor (disambiguation)" is now just "Tor". However, I did leave a redirect behind for Tor (disambiguation) because there are still lots of things that link there, that need to be cleaned up. After the cleanup, it can be deleted. The links to Tor should also be examined and corrected to the proper articles as required. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– For all the possible meanings of Tor, there is no reason for the rock formation to be the most prominent one. Maybe it is slightly more important than the anonymity network or other uses, especially to a general audience, but the difference is nowhere near enough to justify this as the main article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Tor (geology) would be a suitable redirection as this is a word which was in in common usage for hundreds of years before anyone thought of geology. There are indeed several other uses on the disambiguation page, but one has to wonder how many of there are genuine:
Others are:-
  • Tor functor - Not a synonym as it has this as the article title
Oops, sorry, of course I meant homonym Pterre (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rest generally either require full usage for disambiguation e.g. Tor Books or are mainly based on Thor, not Tor and should probably be removed. Pterre (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The English word "tor" means a rock outcrop. It has meant that for a long time. It is a common English word, not jargon specific to the study of geology. Of the other uses, the main two are the missile system, and the computer process. Both of these are obscure - the missile system name is a transliteration from the Russian Тор; NATO calls this SA-15 - the computer process TOR is something most people have never heard of, and is likely to be temporary - a bit like calling hard disks "Winchesters" (which English people did in the mid-1980s).--Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - none of the meanings seem to be primary, including the rock formation. Having the dab page at Tor is the most reasonable solution. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 19:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Toddy1 above and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, long-term significance, Vsmith (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just discovered Wikipedia article statistics that indicated that Tor (anonymity network) was hit over 100,000 times in August, while Tor was hit less than 15,000. "Primary meaning" is determined by what our readers want, and if a supposed secondary meaning beats out the supposed primary meaning, that's saying something. Long-term significance is only one of two factors in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; in the other one, usage, the rock formation doesn't even come close to the anonymity network. And replying to Pterre, no it is not called TOR, the Tor website itself does not do that. Now, if anyone objects to moving Tor to the specific title of Tor (geology), I'm open to suggestions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page view statistics are a poor guide to primary usage, as in the following example:
  • Apple Inc. 1,060,652 times in the last 90 days
  • Apple has been viewed 413,561 times in the last 90 days.
By the way, I do not know anyone who says "Apple Inc." when referring to the company; everyone just says "Apple". Nevertheless, the primary meaning of "apple" is the fruit.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three problems with your argument: 1) "Apple Inc." is an accepted term for the name of the company; "Tor (anonymity network)" is not. It's just called "Tor" (i.e. you might see a news report discussing the profits of Apple Inc., but they would never refer to Tor (anonymity network), since the parentheses are a construct invented by Wikipedia). To call it "Tor Project" would not be accurate because Tor Project is the organization behind the software/network, which is just called Tor and is what the article is about. 2) Apple Inc. is only two times more popular than Apple, which may be enough to be overruled by long-standing significance. The anonymity network is nearly eight times more popular. 3) Note that both Apple Inc. and Apple are far more popular than either of the Tors, which leads to fundamentally different searching behaviors. For both Apples, people know what Apple means in both senses and are looking to increase their knowledge about one Apple or the other; for either Tor, a significant number do not know what it means and want to find out. When you have something as commonplace as an apple, the principle of least astonishment dictates that it be about the fruit. However, when someone comes across the word "Tor" somewhere (but especially on the Internet), doesn't know what it means, and comes to Wikipedia to look for it, it will be beneficial for the page to say that Tor can be a rock formation, an anonymity network, a genus, etc., and they will be able to figure out which one is the correct article based on context. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People know perfectly well what a tor is; most people are just not very interested in it. People see references to this computer thing called "Tor" and do not know what it is, and use Wikipedia to find out. The present article is correct under the principle of least astonishment.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the hard proof of your accusation? Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Hillcrest98. I did not know what a tor was until typing "Tor" on Wikipedia and finding this page. Perhaps where you're from (UK? or maybe Ukraine, based on your userpage?) "tor" is a common word, but it is definitely not in the US. This is a worldwide project, and naming should reflect global usage. Before you accuse me of being US-centric, note that the anonymity network may be quite prominent in several third-world countries where people must use it to access Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd also support that "Tor" become a disambiguation page. Apparently there is no consensus on what usage is primary one so that is acceptable.
For Toddy1: I'm going to say this again, but you have tried to accuse everyone in the whole world that they know what a tor is "perfectly"! Looks like a misunderstanding on your part. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm not convinced that there is, or could be at this time, a primary topic. Given that, the proposed moves makes the most sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vegaswikian, I believe that Toddy1 has made confusing claims during this discussion:
  • He has made an ambiguous claim that "Tor" is a very common word. He provides no proof, other than that statement about "long-term significance" which is overrided by the fact that "Tor", in the geological sense, is not used much outside Britain.
  • He also called the anonymity network and missiles "obscure" and provides seemingly misinterpretable reasons for that.
  • A rather false claim about the use of the word "tor" was also made by him. What he claimed was that all the English-speaking people "know what a tor is".
  • Finally, Toddy1 used a poor analogy involving "Apple Inc." and "Apple". Self-explanatory.
Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom!) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Tor becoming a dab page. As King of Hearts pointed out, Tor (anonymity network) gets about eight times the hits that Tor does, and on a regular basis too. In theory this is good evidence that the network should be the primary topic, but in view of the other valid comments expressed here, I don't think we should go that far. Also, consensus can change and if the network should fade into obscurity after a few years, we can consider swapping back again. I wonder if Tor (geology) is the correct title, though - I think Tor (geomorphology) would be most accurate, but perhaps Tor (geography), Tor (landform) or Tor (rock formation) would be better?  —SMALLJIM  21:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am against the move, if it does take place, Tor (rock formation) is a much better name than Tor (geology). At least it is in plain simple English.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, in both respects. Pterre (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tor (rock formation) sounds fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with "Tor (rock formation)". Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 21:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Geographical sections[edit]

I've divided the examples given into geographical divisions: Britain and its regions and other countries, partly in an attempt to address the current Dartmoor bias. This approach can be added to/amended as time goes by. Dubious about Low Tor and Tor Heard - can anyone add anything or do we delete them? cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Low Tor in the Peak District to the east of Derwent Reservoir, NE of Back Tor and Howshaw Tor (SK 201918). I get the impression that Tor Heard (Long Whatton) is a wind up - actually a show jumper - and should be summarily deleted. Pterre (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article related RM[edit]

Talk:Tor (disambiguation). Please see Talk:Tor#Requested_move_10_December_2015 In ictu oculi (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

– I fail to find sources which distinguish outcrops and tors. In checking some linked articles in that "list of geographical tors" article, I see that Wikipedia editors are calling some rock formations as "tors" without cited sources to verify the use of that term. In the "Tor (rock formation)" article itself I am unable to verify many of the cited sources, but at least by titles, I can see that most of the cited sources are about geology in general and not talking about tors specifically. Because of this, I question whether the concept of "tor" even passes WP:GNG. Also though "outcrop" does not have sources to pass GNG which I find strange, because I expect some geological concept must be fundamental and well described here. I propose to merge because I think that sources which apply to one apply to both. I think "outcrop" is the better term because is easier to understand English, whereas "tor" is a Welsh origin word.

In checking non-English language Wikipedia articles for "tor" I again see discussion of British rock formations with few references.

I support a subsection in the "outcrop" article for "tors", but think that general geological concepts like "formation" should be shared. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since this is not a MERGE discussion and is a MOVE request, and since Outcrop titles a page with significant content and so is ineligible as a target "new" title unless it is also proposed to be renamed, this request has been altered to fix the malformity. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nom is proposing a merge of Tor (rock formation) into Outcrop and then a rename of the list article. Your edit to his nomination makes it seem as though he's also proposing a move of Outcrop, which is not the case. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I suppose the proposer is ignoring the entries in Britannica and the Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, which I think are more than adequate to establish tor as a term we should have an entry about. If a word originating in a language other than English is to be taken as an objection then most of the encyclopaedia needs to be redirected somewhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: Thanks. I do discount Britannica because it is 3 sentences. The other one starts by saying that tor is a Welsh word for an outcrop of a certain size, then does have a good description going 3 pages. It is a good source but I do not think it distinguishes tors and outcrops. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: It says tor derives from an Old Welsh word, not that it is a Welsh word. Many English words derive from words in other languages, and doing so has no relevance whatsoever to a discussion about notability. It then defines them as "large, free-standing, residual masses of rock", with locations and shapes controlled by jointing, while I think it's obvious that "outcrop" can refer to may different formations of widely varying origins. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru, Necrothesp, PC78, Mwtoews, and Khajidha: I am pinging everyone who I have seen in the "tor" network article advocating for the rock formation, and who can probably identify good evidence for keeping distinct articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have time and time again looked for sources clearly distinguishing general geological concepts and i never found a good one for translating between different languages of the wiki, which is why closer inspection of articles for geological formations shows a nightmare of imprecise interwiki links. I believe this happens because people only came up with terms for the geological formations that they knew locally, and a problem of overlapping and/or matching only arises when all terms for formations are placed on a global encyclopaedia. I don't think solving this problem of semi-overlapping definitions would be possible without manipulating the definitions of many such words, it is simply a product of language. While tors are a type of outcrop, i think they have enough notability to stand as their own article, not only for their difference in appearance and type of formation but for their cultural significance (being relevant for archeology, unlike general outcrops). A merge request would be reasonable, but i don't see the purpose of a page move. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose rename/move of Tor (rock formation) to replace Outcrop. Tors are a small subset of outcrops. GeoWriter (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is primarily about the formations in Devon and Cornwall, which are very clearly known as tors. The argument that this should be deprecated because it is not an "English" word is ludicrous (and, as has already been stated, it is an English word). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is a misrepresentation of Bluerasberry's argument. As I understood it, they were just saying that, if we grant that tor and outcrop are just two words for the same concept, then, when choosing what title to use for the merged article for that concept, we should go with the English term outcrop because it's more readily recognizable. Colin M (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Tor is an example of a specific type of outcrop known mainly from a specific geographical area and is not commonly used globally. Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because a "tor" is a distinct type of landform that is recognized by geomorphologists and geologists by name as occurring not only in Devon and Cornwall, but also in Scandinavia, Central Europe, india, North America (New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming, etc.), Seychelles, and other locations. Their origin and significance is widely discussed by geomorphologists and geologists. Dartmoor, Devonshire, England, is just considered the type area for tors. For the distinctiveness of tors, go see "Granite Landscapes of the World" by Piotr Migon. Paul H. (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tor_(rock_formation)&oldid=1194882752"