Talk:Royal Cricketers Arms Inn

	Australia portal Royal Cricketers Arms Inn 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 Sydney (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

History

As with many of these hotel articles appear derived from the Heritage listings, I question the inclusion of much of the information in this section. The subject of this article is the Royal Cricketers Arms Inn, but it includes detailed discussion of the indigenous history and 100 years of European colonial history that predates the hotel. This information is quite removed from the subject thus has a low level of relevance. It's interesting, sure. But a full 10 paragraphs is unnecessary, especially as the same information is comprehensively covered in many other articles where it is directly related to the subject!

I would make a bold edit and remove it, but the information has been well-referenced and the article rated as of C-class quality so such a move may be contentious and I'd prefer to discuss here first. Dfadden (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]