Talk:Southern Highlands (New South Wales)

encyclopaedic

This article reads like a cross between a real-estate advertisement, a tourism brochure and a polictical lobbyist's briefing paper. This definitely needs to be more encyclopaedic. Martyvis 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

High range

For user AYArktos: Oh yes, High Range, NSW does indeed exist--I think I've even been there--or been through it--hard to know, 'cause if you blink, you miss these places.... My question was just why you were singling out High Range rather than the score of larger towns and villages which composed or can be/are sometimes considered to be part of the Southern Highlands.

Now, is getting High Range "a mention" justification enough to include that not-terribly-significant hamlet (with apologies to its residents; I'm not saying it's not worthy) in this article? I'm not sure. What are Wikipedia's guidelines on this? I don't know and I won't quibble.

This might be a good point of departure--should we add a list of Southern Highlands towns? Or just the most significant ones (in which case, I'm afraid High Range wouldn't make the cut). I might point out that since forced amalgamations, there's some confusion as to what, exactly, constitutes the Southern Highlands.

Quill 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not the editor who added High Range. Removing the reference from this article seemed a bit excessive, toning down the mention seemed a better option, hence I reverted the removal of a reference to a verified place. I have not been through it or heard of it, hence my desire to verify that it wasn't a hoax, particulalry given the tone of its article.

A list of Southern Highlands towns would perhaps be good in order to add some structure, the prose is perhaps getting a bit out of hand.--A Y Arktos 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are verifiability: Wikipedia:Verifiability, no more, no less.--A Y Arktos 20:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ourpatch link

I have removed the Ourpatch link from the article per the style guideline here:

• the link does not provide a unique resource;
• it is arguably promotional, and designed to attract viewers to aprticualr busiensses or advertising; and
• it doesn't reference or provide any particualr information relevant to the content of the article.

As always, differences of opinion are welcome. If you think the link shoul;dstay, let's develop a consensus here one way or the other. Euryalus (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation

This should be a parent category of Category:Towns of the Southern Highlands NSW, not a child category of it. Robin Patterson (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct formatting

It should be Southern Highlands, New South Wales, not Southern Highlands (New South Wales) --121.216.40.20 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why it shouldn't please? I'm not on anyone's side, just curious. --138.130.112.179 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Southern Highlands (New South Wales). 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/20091121075915/http://www.berrimavillage.com.au/history_attractions.html to http://www.berrimavillage.com.au/history_attractions.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)