For more about using talk pages check out Wikitravel:Using talk pages.
In regards to all Northern Territory information I have added, you may notice that some of the text I am adding appears in another website eg travelnt.com, that is because I am the original author. --Lex 11:39, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Please contact Ryan Campbell if you require confirmation.
Manager – Web and Digital Development
Brand & Marketing Services
t: 61 8 8999 3919 : f: 61 8 8999 3920
e: [email protected]
We now got the Red Centre and Top End regions. Do we even need these regions in the first place? NT only has a few cities, but does have some amazing national parks. I think they easily fit within one article though and no further sub-divisions. I suggest we get rid of Top End (it doesn't fit our regional scheme, as it includes parts of Queensland and Western Australia). But then, what to do with Red Centre? I think it's a bit of a strange article, can't we just merge it with Alice Springs? Globe-trotter 21:43, 22 December 2009 (EST)
- I think a good regional structure could actually be really useful - because so much of what there is to see doesn't lie within normal city articles, and touring around regions is a popular thing to do.
- Putting the whole thing in one region makes for a very large region. Uluru is closer to Adelaide than it is to Darwin, and more than a couple of days drive.
- However, I agree that the current top-end and Red Centre regions are not a necessarily the most useful division. Red centre makes a really nice region I think. So many people do the Alice/Uluru/McDonnell Ranges/Kings Canyon trip, and grouping those together makes sense - but I don't think the current article does it justice. So does Darwin/Katherine and Kakadu make a good region. Many people do that region in a trip. The question is how you put a region around the rest of the area, which includes an awful lot of nothing. --inas 22:04, 22 December 2009 (EST)
- Top End and Red Centre do seem logical: one is lush tropical, while the other is red desert. And indeed, sights in these areas are often combined. We could include Tennant Creek in Red Centre, which would make it larger, but it's not like it can sustain its own region. The same logic applies to Arnhem Land: we could make it a whole region, but i'd rather just keep it a National Park article. Globe-trotter 19:10, 23 December 2009 (EST)
- Or maybe the Tennant Creek Area could sustain it's own region? From north to south there's Runner Springs, Barkly Homestead, Tennant Creek, Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve, Wauchope, Wycliffe Well and Aileron. It might be a bit comical to give those their own articles though, as most of them have sleeping facilities but are really small. But as I have been at them, I could give it a shot.
- See the NT Regions Map here  and here . I think this is good for us to copy (except that we should include full Arnhem Land, not just the east portion). That would make the regions:
- Darwin (region)
- Katherine (region) (which could be combined as Top End)
- Arnhem Land (possibly also Top End)
- Barkly Tableland
- Red Centre.
- We could also combine Darwin and Katherine into "Top End" (which sounds more logical), and maybe include Arnhem Land in that. If done that way, we'd have three or four regions, Top End, Barkly Tableland, Red Centre and possibly Arnhem Land. Globe-trotter 19:29, 23 December 2009 (EST)
- Sounds good to me. 3 regions, using Barkly Tableland for the area between the Top End and Red Centre. --inas 21:26, 23 December 2009 (EST)