Talk:Swan Hill

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Australia: Places / Victoria Low‑importance

	Australia portal Swan Hill 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (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 Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

smartfm.org.au link is dead

The link to smartfm.org.au is down, will need removing if stays offline. Vauxhallx (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been corrected. KING (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from Melbourne

The distance from melbourne is listed as 338km, but ive seen the distance noted as 344km. Can someone just confirm this is correct? Vauxhallx (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The further distance is likely via Bendigo which is not the most direct highway route. Google Maps travel directions if they are referencable shows this route as 337KM from Melbourne G.P.O. to the clock tower at the center of town in Swan Hill, opposite the Post Office (a Post Office outlet but not listed as G.P.O.) and is the closest direct highway route. Google Maps KING (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swan Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719223511/http://countryracing.com.au/index.php?option=com_club_info&club=38&Itemid=80 to http://www.countryracing.com.au/index.php?option=com_club_info&club=38&Itemid=80

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

not merged; closed per snowball clause and below message. Graham87 03:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I propose to merge City of Swan Hill into Swan Hill. I think that the content in the City of Swan Hill article can easily be included in the context of Swan Hill, and the Swan Hill article is of a reasonable size that the merging of City of Swan Hill will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Jonathan O'Donnell (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge – Substantially separate topic. A better target would be Rural City of Swan Hill but, even then, no. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - local government articles are not merged with settlement articles anywhere else in Australia. As with Bleakcomb, if City of Swan Hill were to be merged, it should be with Shire of Swan Hill into Rural City of Swan Hill, but this would still not be helpful as the Rural City also incorporates part of the former Shire of Kerang. Better would be to expand the article with the list of mayors/chairmen etc. Barry Steggall already has an article, for example. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose different topics entirely, one is about an urban settlement, the other is about a local government area. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the whole Australian project has separation of the local government from locality articles, and is consistent with this practice - the precedent sent by this proposal simply would be disruptive and lack cognisance of the wider practice JarrahTree 01:46, 11 July 2020 (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.

I have closed this discussion because there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it will result in a merge. Also, canvassing like this is highly disruptive. Graham87 03:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Swan Hill Pioneer Settlement" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Swan Hill Pioneer Settlement and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Swan Hill Pioneer Settlement until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]