Talk:Royal George Hotel, Sydney

Clarification

@The Drover's Wife: ....if the bit about the "Patent Slip" goes in the lede, it needs to be made clear that it's not the hotel. Perhaps you might like to clarify what you mean. These are not two seperate properties, from my observation, but one consolidated title brought about by land resumption and construction of the Western Distributor. Many thanks. This picture from Google Maps gives a clear indication on how the titles have been consolidated into one property, with the properties located at 107-113 Sussex Street at the right of the image, closest to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Rangasyd (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not two separate properties now, but 107-113 Sussex Street is not historically part of the hotel (and not included in the SHR listing). It is pretty confusing to readers to put in the infobox of an article ostensibly about a hotel that it was built from 1869 to 1903 when the hotel was built in 1903, and only the much later incorporated adjoining building from that time.

The SHI material was added to this article in a way that really didn't work - that a slab of SHI text was copypasted under the heading "115-117 Sussex Street" (the hotel's address) while the material about the hotel was put in a section called "Current site", when they're both the same thing, and "107-113 Sussex Street" was put first of the three even those it was only relatively recently incorporated into the hotel. I don't object to it being integrated into this article, but it really needs to actually be integrated in a way that remotely makes sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your argument makes sense. For example, when the SHR lists three adjacent warehouses, you decide that it's appropriate to merge the articles into one, even though the SHR has listed them separately. And yet, in this case of the terraces at 107-113 Sussex Street, Sydney adjoining the hotel, that now operate as one business (The Slip Inn/El Loco; part of Merrivale Group), you decide that it's inappropriate to merge the articles. In not at a point where I want to argue; I just want it done and my thoughts are that they should be merged. Perhaps, considering you feel so strongly about the need to seperate the articles, you should also write the article for the adjoining terraces, as well as the article for the hotel, in a style that suits you. Rangasyd (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rangasyd: - I already merged them hours ago, having already said I was fine with it - just in a way that makes sense, and makes clear that the site now consists of a hotel built in 1903 as well as a commercial building built in 1869 that was incorporated into the hotel in the 1980s. I was cranky about a really sloppy merger into an article I worked really hard on, not the concept of merging the two (as I said the first time). It doesn't necessarily follow that just because material from the SHI makes it into a Wikipedia article in some form that it's an improvement to that article unless it's properly incorporated so that the article makes sense with it included, rather than copypasted and just thrown into the article somewhere so it can be said that it's there leaving a mishmash of a result. As for the Bulletin Place warehouses - half the content there is overlapping, and there isn't much of it to begin with, but if you want to write separate articles, be my guest. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Well, the address appears incorrect to me. Rangasyd (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

NSW SHR designation for 107-113 Sussex Street

Would it be possible to have a 2nd NSW SHR designation in the infobox for 107-113 Sussex Street? Kerry (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is one of the "messy cases" that we encounter in the NSW SHR. Kerry (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it if it's technically possible. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)