Return to article

Proposal_talk: WLM 2013

(pitfall)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Pitfall==
==Pitfall==
Pitfall:access to monuments as a resident in Sydney or Melbourne is going to have a greater selection for momuments compared to someone in Townsville or Albany. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 23:07, 3 December 2012 (EST)
Pitfall:access to monuments as a resident in Sydney or Melbourne is going to have a greater selection for momuments compared to someone in Townsville or Albany. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 23:07, 3 December 2012 (EST)
:Not sure; perhaps some ''types'' of monuments. But I wonder whether regional towns have monuments such as town halls (some of them magnificent), court houses, railway stations. And would a register of Indigenous places be admissible? I don't know whether such a register exists, but I suspect the "monuments wouldn't all be in cities. [[User:Tony1|Tony1]] 23:56, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Revision as of 12:56, 3 December 2012

Pitfall

Pitfall:access to monuments as a resident in Sydney or Melbourne is going to have a greater selection for momuments compared to someone in Townsville or Albany. Gnangarra 23:07, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Not sure; perhaps some types of monuments. But I wonder whether regional towns have monuments such as town halls (some of them magnificent), court houses, railway stations. And would a register of Indigenous places be admissible? I don't know whether such a register exists, but I suspect the "monuments wouldn't all be in cities. Tony1 23:56, 3 December 2012 (EST)