Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Clayton or Clayton Bay

An article has been created on Clayton Bay, South Australia. Looking at Google Maps, they call the town Clayton, South Australia. Can a local provide the correct name of the town please? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Victor Harbor

I found City of Victor Harbor inexplicably not a link on Template:Local Government Areas of South Australia and redlinked on Alexandrina Council, so I started to created it as a #REDIRECT to Victor Harbor, South Australia. Then I discovered that page had previously existed and been deleted with these logs showing on the create page:

• 23:12, 12 March 2008 Rebecca (talk | contribs) deleted "City of Victor Harbor" ‎(should not be a redirect; is confusing potential authors)
• 20:06, 4 June 2006 Kusma (talk | contribs) deleted "City of Victor Harbor" ‎ (content was: '{{db|blanked by the sole author}}')

Is there any good reason why this should not be a redirect? YBG (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a redirect because City of Victor Harbor is a separate entity to Victor Harbor, South Australia. The former is a Local Government Area and the latter is a locality. See City of Port Lincoln and Port Lincoln, South Australia for an example of how this works practically. I don't know why there has not been an article created before now but I see no reason not to create one. I don't know why it is not linked on {{Local Government Areas of South Australia}}; I see no problem with linking it. Creating a redirect from an LGA to a locality article can confuse two separate entities. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! YBG (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wrote an article for it. It's a bit reliant on the council's own home page but the info is uncontroversial so saw little problem with this. Orderinchaos 09:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Localities navbars

I've been creating locality navbars here for those South Australian LGAs that don't already have one. In many cases, there are just enough blue links to justify transferring a navbar from my Userspace into Template-space. In some cases, though, all (or the great majority) of consituent localities to an LGA are redlinks.

I'm wondering, therefore, if anyone would like to create the various locality articles; bluelinking the redlinks, as it were?

Also, on a similar (but separate) tangent, does anyone think it would be best if those navbars which are still full of redlinks be moved into some subpage of this (or a related) project. People would be more likely to find them that way, thus (possibly) avoiding recreating something that already exists?

Thank you. LordVetinari 03:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking to my own work in Queensland (cf. Bundaberg Central, Queensland), I don't think blue links vs red links really matters, as long as there's at least one blue link. Orderinchaos 03:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My usual threshold for moving templates out of userspace is for there to be about 3-5 bluelinks, depending on total qty of links. However, if, as you say, one bluelink is fine, then I have no complaint with only creating a couple stubs myself. Thanks for the Bundaberg Central link. If you don't mind, I'll use that as a guide. I think my main concern was that I've come across complaints against such hugely redlinked templates in the past and I didn't want to have to risk that. I presume this case whould be fine, though, as localities appear to have inherent notability. Anyway, thanks for your help. LordVetinari 04:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear LordVetinari, I'm quite happy to volunteer to create articles for the LGA navbars. I've actually started (see:Barinia). It may take a while, as I don't go on to Wikipedia as much as I used to, but over a period of time I'm sure I can work my way through them. Let me know if you and the rest of the group are happy for me to start on that. Marionlad (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The more of us who work on them, the better. LordVetinari 09:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not group several of these together, for example, one navbar for Eyre Peninsula with a group for City of Port Lincoln suburbs, another group for City of Whyalla suburbs, etc. YBG (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I was pondering that but won't the qty of redlinks be emphasised by such grouping? LordVetinari 09:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how clearly regions are defined in SA - WA, whose population structure is not dissimilar to SA, has regions defined in legislation, and its Wikipedians have taken advantage of this for the infoboxes. An example is at 1 or 2. (Note that larger centres have their own - e.g. 3 (suburb of Albany) - in one LGA - or 4 (suburb of Bunbury) - split across four.). Orderinchaos 09:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The regions listed at Local government areas of South Australia are simply those used by the Local Government Association of South Australia. Outside of that organisation, I don't think those regional designations have any other official standing. I opted to use those regions as they were relevant and it offers an external source to point to in case other users dispute which region in which a council area is lcoated. LordVetinari 09:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Adelaide CBD Streets

Comments would be greatly appreciated on several options for Template:Adelaide CBD Streets; please weigh in on the talk page. YBG (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Herbarium

The ABC was running a story today on the herbarium http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-27/fungus-herbarium-adelaide-milestone/3748804- and I couldnt find an article - so - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Herbarium_of_South_Australia - any help to clean it up or expand would be appreciated SatuSuro 06:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games: South Australia events

If you're participating or considering in participating in Wikimedians to the Games, you may be interested in attending the events below. They may provide an opportunity to get information to write a Wikinews article or to take pictures for points on Commons. If you're not participating, it would still be great to see people attending these events to take pictures for use on Wikipedia and Wikinews. If you do decide to attend, consider hosting a Wikimedia meetup at the end or the evening of the event, or even just letting HOPAU organisers know you are planning to attend. If you leave a message on my talk page, I can help you promote the meetup. :) If you need help with organising attendance because of transport cost issues or accessibility in terms of wanting press access, again please get in touch. :) --LauraHale (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Blind futsal

• 17 March 2012 - National Champtionships, Campbelltown Leisure Centre Adelaide, South Australia[1]

Cue sports

• Wednesday 21 March 2012 02:00pm - 04:00pm Cue Sports Program - South Australia [2]
• Wednesday 18 April 2012 02:00am - 04:00pm Cue Sports Program - South Australia [3]

Cycling

• Sunday 04 March 2012 11:00am - 01:00pm Monthly Hand Cycling Ride - South Australia [4]
• Sunday 01 April 2012 11:00am - 01:00pm Monthly Hand Cycling Ride - South Australia [5]

Fishing

• Sunday 15 April 2012 10:00am - 02:00pm Monthly Fishing Trip - South Australia [6]

Para canoe

• Sunday 26 February 2012 08:00am - 05:00pm Para Canoe - South Australia [7]
• Sunday 11 March 2012 08:00am - 05:00pm Para Canoe - South Australia [8]
• Sunday 25 March 2012 08:00am - 05:00pm Para Canoe - South Australia [9]

Ten Pin Bowling

• Saturday 03 March 2012 02:00pm - 03:30pm Ten Pin Bowling - South Australia [10]
• Saturday 14 April 2012 02:00pm - 03:30pm Ten Pin Bowling - South Australia [11]
• Saturday 05 May 2012 02:00pm - 03:30pm Ten Pin Bowling - South Australia [12]

Wheelchair basketball

• Tuesday 21 February 2012 07:00pm - 09:00pm Northern Wheelchair Basketball League [13]
• Sunday 19 February 2012 08:00am - 05:00pm South Australian Junior Wheelchair Basketball Development Program [14]
• Sat 10/Mar Adelaide Thunder vs The Be Active Perth Wheelcats Marion Leisure and Fitness Centre [15]
• Sun 11/Mar Adelaide Thunder vs The Be Active Perth Wheelcats St Clair Recreation Centre [16]
• Sat 26/May Adelaide Thunder vs RSL Queensland Spinning Bullets Wayville Sports Centre [17]
• Sat 28/Apr Adelaide Thunder vs Victoria Dandenong Rangers Wayville Sports Centre [18]
• Sun 27/May Adelaide Thunder vs RSL Queensland Spinning Bullets Wayville Sports Centre [19]
• Sunday 25 March 2012 11:30am - 12:30pm South Australia Junior Wheelchair Basketball Development Program [20]
• Sunday 06 May 2012 11:30am - 12:30pm South Australia Junior Wheelchair Basketball Development Program [21]

Wheelchair rugby

• Wednesday 02 May 2012 06:30pm - 08:30pm Murderball (wheelchair rugby) League [22]

Wheelchair tennis

• Wednesday 22 February 2012 10:30am - 11:30am Local Wheelchair Tennis Development Series [23]
• Wednesday 02 May 2012 10:30am - 11:30am Local Wheelchair Tennis Development Series [24]

WikiProject Australian Roads

Hi folks - anyone with any interest - there is a new Australian project Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads - please have a look. sats 02:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

City of Adelaide

Members of this Project may be interested in a proposal to improve the article on the clipper ship City of Adelaide in time for the ship's planned arrival in Australia in February. See Talk:City of Adelaide (1864). Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Oceania may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

LGA location maps

I've started making location maps for the SA local government areas. The maps I've made so far are all SVG in Media related to Location maps of local government areas in South Australia at Wikimedia Commons and I'm creating the relevant module to make them work with town infoboxes simply by adding "|use_lga_map=yes". I haven't worked out much about modules yet, just copying and changing the numbers and titles as I go. My process is improving, but still has a degree of manual work on each one, so I'm not making them very quickly. There's also a quite different style one for the Adelaide metro area at File:Australia Greater Adelaide location map.svg.

I'm not sure if they are more use than the state map for locating most places rather than state maps. Any comments are welcome, especially of the kind of "STOP, don't waste your time unless you can also do ...". Pats on the back are welcome too ;-) --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated South Australian state election, 2006 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

• indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
• add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to attend the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Update of list of participants

I've just updated the list, and moved a couple of participants to the "inactive" list as they haven't made any edits for more than 12 months. Bahudhara (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessments

I noticed we have an article currently assessed as High importance and Stub-class. I thought that would be a candidate for a holiday project, but when I read the article (Fos Williams), it is way too long to be "stub", and the set of articles at Top and High importance appear to be somewhat haphazard and a rather odd and eclectic mix of topics. I don't very often pay much attention to ratings, so disinclined to just alter this one to different rating standards.

I'd like to initiate a "big-picture" discussion of the articles that should be rated as Top and High Importance for South Australia.

The Top Importance articles are currently: Adelaide, W. H. Burford & Son, South Australia, John Ellis (pastoralist), John Stephens (editor), Piping shrike, William Gilbert (pastoralist), William Gilbert (politician)

High Importance are: Don Dunstan, Liberal Movement (Australia), Thomas Playford IV, British nuclear tests at Maralinga, South Australian National Football League, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981, David Unaipon, Henry Barwell, John Cahill (footballer), South Australian state election, 2010, Sport in South Australia, Fos Williams

Am I the only person here who does not think these are the 20 most important topics related to South Australia for Wikipedia? Does anyone know of a guideline for how many articles we should have at each importance rating? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's holiday season, but I've seen no comments on this in a few days. Here are my possible lists of the articles that should be Top and High importance for South Australia:

Top importance

• South Australia
• Adelaide
• History of South Australia
• Geography of South Australia
• Kaurna/Ngarrindjeri (or better would be an article expanding on Category:Aboriginal peoples of South Australia)
• Geology of South Australia
• South Australian wine
• Government of South Australia
• Demographics of South Australia if it existed

High importance

• South Australian Legislative Council
• South Australian House of Assembly
• William Light
• Roma Mitchell
• Don Dunstan
• Thomas Playford IV
• Piping shrike
• Goyders Line
• Transport in South Australia
• German settlement in Australia
• Sport in South Australia
• South Australian National Football League
• Proclamation Day (South Australia)
• British nuclear tests at Maralinga
• Timeline of South Australian history
• Kangaroo Island
• Mount Lofty Ranges
• Flinders Ranges
• Olympic Dam mine
• Woomera Prohibited Area
• Protected areas of South Australia
• Lake Eyre

How does that set look? I would demote any other articles to at most Mid-Importance. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, your proposed list is a vast improvement. Well done. --Danimations (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made the adjustments proposed above, with the exception that I kept Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 as high-importance, and have not promoted Kaurna or Ngarrindjeri as I would rather we create Aboriginal peoples of South Australia to give a state-wide perspective including early relations, land rights, current situations etc. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds and Counties

Copied from my talk page

1. Thank you Donama for changing the way the Counties are named - "County of X" seems to be the official name style anyway.
2. I just noticed a few move comments of Hundred articles along the lines of "precedent already set for pessemistically disambiguating SA hundreds (e.g. Hundred of Pinkawillinie)". I was first author of that article, but followed the red link naming from Lands administrative divisions of South Australia, which I didn't create. I am a strong advocate for "X, South Australia" for towns and localities primarily for the principle of least surprise, but I'd be surprised if there are many clashes for "Hundred of Y", as Hundred is a relatively obscure term. Do you think we should aim for consensus to just make them "Hundred of Y", and deal with any clashes that might arise, before there are a lot of red links to adjust? Or has it become natural to write "Hundred of Y, South Australia"? --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I started doing that then I realised there were so many links to change from the Lands administrative divisions of South Australia article plus the precedent articles (there were several). I'm going to keep going with hundred articles gradually so just let me know what I should do. Donama (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

[ After changing the article links ] How does Lands administrative divisions of South Australia#List_of_Hundreds#List of hundreds look with the shorter links I just adjusted? Which do you prefer? --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like I picked up Hundred of Kingston and Hundred of Bagot that I shouldn't have, so we need to decide which kind of disambig to use for those two special cases (and any future ones), whether it's the style I just switched from, or (South Australia). --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

How does Lands administrative divisions of South Australia#List_of_Hundreds#List of hundreds look with the shorter links I just adjusted? Which do you prefer?

It looks like I picked up Hundred of Kingston and Hundred of Bagot that I shouldn't have, so we need to decide which kind of disambig to use for those two special cases (and any future ones), whether it's the style I just switched from, or (South Australia). --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks great. Let's do that. If there's a clash I slightly prefer the "Hundred of X (South Australia)" style but so far I have not found a clash! Donama (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

For my two cents, I much prefer "Hundred of Y" unless it's also a gazetted bounded locality by that name, just because SA geographical systems are confusing as buggery anyway and not mangling the way we title land hundreds from the way we title localities feels like one tiny step towards making that clearer (it's also what we do for the myriad of broader cadastral division articles interstate that someone created back in the day). For the same reason, I would probably go with Hundred of Kingston (South Australia) and Hundred of Bagot (South Australia) if we needed them disambiguated.

I feel like we should probably try to minimise the extent we have articles on hundreds, even though they received such use in South Australia: there's so very many of them, they overlap utterly with the modern locality system, and it's rare they would contain any content which couldn't be referenced in the history section of any localities that were part of the hundreds. Like, it's taken a lot of reading (and more recently of Scott's patience) for this to make sense to me, and I feel like the less we duplicate land divisions the better. I think I would prefer they either redirect to localities (where there was only one of them), or district councils (where the council was based on the hundred and the localities were subdivided), but it might be a broader conversation to have if there's hundreds that don't fit that who have any plausible claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The above conversation is copied here so it has a wider audience and lands in an appropriate archive for posterity. Unless someone shouts loudly, the Counties of SA links are now "County of X, South Australia" and Hundreds are "Hundred of Y", except for Bagot and Kingston that will shortly have their red links restored as "Hundred of Y (South Australia)". --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel like we should probably try to minimise the extent we have articles on hundreds, even though they received such use in South Australia: there's so very many of them, they overlap utterly with the modern locality system, and it's rare they would contain any content which couldn't be referenced in the history section of any localities that were part of the hundreds. Like, it's taken a lot of reading (and more recently of Scott's patience) for this to make sense to me, and I feel like the less we duplicate land divisions the better. I think I would prefer they either redirect to localities (where there was only one of them), or district councils (where the council was based on the hundred and the localities were subdivided), but it might be a broader conversation to have if there's hundreds that don't fit that who have any plausible claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like agreement from three of us who are active. I shall slightly edit/curate the conversation and copy it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Australia, with the conclusion this is how we shall go. Thanks. Sorry Donama that you have done a little bit of moving things around that needs to be un-done. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes please do, Scott. Also, edit clash - pasting below. Donama (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drover's Wife. I want to make a case for having Hundred articles :) The reason I feel like the Hundred articles are useful is for historical purposes. I know this sounds silly at first but if we were editing Wikipedia in 1916 it would be a sensible/essential way to describe land and landmarks in South Australia. Of course they're not really useful to describe land and landmarks today (except if you are dealing with real estate) but for events that took place a 100 years ago the context is the Hundred of Belvidere or whatever. It appears that many early LGAs were created based on the delineation of the Hundred, for example - recent cases in point for me being the historic DC of Hall and DC of Kapunda so we might think of Hundreds as the precursors to LGAs. Also, if you are doing genealogical research, births, marriages and deaths were recorded by the state as being in the Hundred of Daly or just 'Daly' - no other location information or hint as to where Daly is (since it's not a bounded locality or town today). Therefore they're important and really useful to me at least. Outside SA I daresay people couldn't care less. All that said, yes, fine to redirect to the town name if it's an obvious, centred match (e.g. Hundred of Kapunda, Hundred of Dublin which I've already done, but anyway) @ScottDavis please move this somewhere more central if it's annoying. Donama (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Just had another thought. If the Hundred articles by themselves are in some cases not notable, could we at least have County articles and any info about constituent Hundreds inside there, redirects as necessary from Hundred titles. I made a mistake above about births, deaths, marriages. They were recorded by County, not Hundred. Donama (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I live in the half-way house :-) I definitely think it would be useful to (eventually) have blue links in the list article. I also think it is not helpful to have up to four different short articles discussing different aspects of essentially the same piece of dirt (e.g. tenancy, ownership, governance, conservation) if the boundaries more-or-less match. I suspect that as we move out from Adelaide, the choices of which kinds of articles to create and which to make redirects could change. It would not be helpful to attempt to describe all the suburbs or even LGA in Hundred of Yatala, but I was struggling to justify Hundred of Pinkawillinie as separate from Pinkawillinie Conservation Park. Some/many of the late-nineteenth century Hundreds had a close correspondence to District Councils, so there only needs to be one article covering both aspects, and towards the fringes, they also correspond to modern Bounded Localities. I have an ancestor who's brother took up scrub land in Hundred of Moorook, 6 miles from the river, so I suspect it was not in Moorook, South Australia, but I haven't worked out where it was yet. I'm also a little stumped about exactly where some other ancestors were when they died in "Hundred of English, Kapunda", since Hundred of English is northeast of Eudunda, not near Kapunda. Several of the towns/localities/LOCBs in HofE are in my to-do list above as I think just about every one of them had some of my antecedents live there at some stage.

I'd say create the articles that interest us, and consider merging if there is too much overlap, whether that is to LGA, Hundred, LOCB or Conservation Park combo articles. Having the Hundred articles might make it easier to work out where to link some of the early railway station/siding names to, as well. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

re Births, Deaths etc. I have not noticed any recorded by county, but deaths at least seem to have been reported by Hundred for some period. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am much similar to Scott - I don't actually oppose them on principle, I just don't want to see multiple articles covering what basically amounts to the same place if we can avoid it: like, we've already done that with not having "Pinkawillinie" and "Hundred of Pinkawillinie", and I'm not entirely opposed to preferring an article on the hundred in a case like that if there's a logic to it. (I do think the conservation park articles are different, though - I would leave those to "environmental aspects" and "stuff that is physically located there" and put the rest somewhere else.) I would just rather see hundreds that were analogous to their district councils go in the District Council articles though, and am wheeling those articles out at the moment. I see I'm not the only one to still be running into early SA's eclectic problems with labelling where the heck things were! The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Again it depends on context. Gawler Ranges, South Australia (locality) matches much better to Gawler Ranges National Park than to Gawler Ranges (mountains). Chowilla, Ngarkat and Katarapko are also much the same places as the relevant parks. I'd say if you have enough for an article, write it at which ever title and focussed on which ever aspect is appropriate, then either cross-link or redirect ({{R with possibilities}}) for relevant other ways of finding it. Railway articles are just as frustrating at times, when they sometimes red-link to a station instead of a blue link to the town the station is in.--Scott Davis ^Talk 04:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A note on BDM Registration Districts - it appears they did not really match any other approach and were frequently revised, at State Library of SA: Births, deaths and marriages it states 'The district boundaries often changed, much like the electoral borders change today, and just as with the electoral office, they could register at the nearest office or agent.' -- Paul foord (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually coming around to the hundreds idea, looking through some of Donama's efforts now that the confusing titles are gone: Hundred of Yatala is a great example of why they're useful, because it's a geographical term that was used everywhere once upon a time and nothing in our existing disambiguation page quite cut it. It's not as if we don't have a million "County of X" cadastral division articles around the country that see far less use, though again it probably needs to be a bit case-by-case to avoid duplication. As for Scott's point: I am certainly not going to lose any sleep if Chowilla/Ngarkat/Katarapko/Gawler Ranges get merged with the conservation parks: anywhere where there's nothing in the locality that isn't also in the conservation park is probably just unnecessarily duplication. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try and focus on specific notability in hundred articles. Outside Adelaide, county articles probably are enough unless there's a specific reason to break out a hundred article. Donama (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm less enthusiastic about the County articles - I mean, it isn't a bad idea to have them because the other states do, but I've done heavy geographical work on areas in Victoria had had to refer to a county maybe once, whereas hundreds come up way more often in SA history. Counties useful for our coverage of formal land divisions but not nearly as useful in covering actual places. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Railways in South Australia

One thing I'm noticing in creating these locality articles is that very often they have or have had railways passing through them, but because of the unique structure of the South Australian railway system in not being terribly linear, are often really not obvious about where said railways went.

I'm happy to write these articles, especially in the areas where I'm working the heaviest, but I frequently can't work out what the heck the lines were called when they don't have a completely obvious terminus. I'm assuming this is why a lot of these lines don't have articles already. Can anyone give me a hand with working out where these articles need to go? The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I've done articles for most of the broad gauge lines in SA, so you should be able to find them from "What links here". Most of the ones that run roughly north are named after their northern terminus where they reached what is now the standard gauge line or the Murray River. I haven't done the Robertstown railway line branch from Eudunda yet, nor the Port Wakefield railway line in from Port Wakefield to Balaklava and over to Kadina/Wallaroo/Moonta, nor the one from there through Bute and Snowtown. I'm happy to write more of those articles, but have struggled to work out correct names for some of them - The Brown's Well railway line was built to the District Council of Brown's Well is now at Barmera railway line which was its longest extention. The Rail transport in South Australia article needs a complete do-over to address the mess of incremental changes. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be amazing if the general article did get a bit of an overhaul! A few questions: firstly, looking at this old map, do we have articles on that long one that goes out west from Port Lincoln or the one that goes up from Stirling North through Depot Creek? I am confused as hell about the circular lines around Port Augusta, so any guidance there would be wonderful (even redlinks of knowing what to call the damn thing would be a start!) I'm assuming we don't have any on the Hawker, Spalding, Wilmington lines, since they would seem to have logical titles? Also Quorn to Peterborough? The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The Eyre Peninsula Railway article covers all of the narrow gauge from Port Lincoln to Penong and Buckleboo. The line through Depot Creek looks like it is the standard gauge Marree railway line (more recently the line from Leigh Creek mine to the power stations at Port Augusta, but that has/will soon close too). I hadn't tried looking north of the Crystal Brook-Broken Hill railway line much yet, so don't think there is an article for Peterborough-Quorn. Hawker is on Central Australia Railway. Spalding is Spalding railway line. I stopped at Gladstone railway line and don't think there is an article for the narrow gauge continuation to Wilmington. I did all of the Mallee lines (Moorook railway line is on the map as terminating at Yinkanie) and most of the mid north last time I was in a railways mood. Angaston and Truro (and Penrice) are in Barossa Valley railway line. BarossaV and Hutchy11051982 are better at railway knowledge than I am, but haven't edited lately. I am not sure what you mean about the circular lines around Port Augusta? It's a black-line map, are you mixing coastline and railway line? Not all of the branches are documented in Mount Gambier railway line yet. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much - that's really helpful and gives me something to worth with. It's just an unusual system requiring an unusual approach - like with the amount of branches in Eyre Peninsula Railway no wonder I was confused! Not your standard linear "Woop Woop railway line", that's for sure. I'd missed that Spalding was already there, and the damn gauge conversion is exactly the sort of thing I need to know if I'm going to do things like the Wilmington line.

As for Port Augusta: the lines in that area get confusing. Like, the first two northerly ones make sense as the Marree and Hawker lines, but it's not immediately obvious where they start; Quorn-Peterborough seems like an obvious missing link that I can probably right (assuming it is actually seen as starting from Quorn and not further back), I get confused by the muddle of lines south of Port Pirie and where they end and that line that snakes way down south from Gladstone, and where the end of the line going south from Peterborough is. Sorry to have to ask a bunch of these questions: it's just an unusual structure and I can be a lot more useful in explaining it in new articles if I can make head nor tail of it myself. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried to name them in the order they built out from Gawler, so it's the Morgan railway line from Gawler through Roseworthy, Kapunda and Eudunda, the Peterborough railway line from Roseworthy through Hamley Bridge, Riverton, Burra and Terowie, Spalding railway line from Riverton, Gladstone railway line from Hamley Bridge, but that got messy as it included part of the earlier Port Wakefield railway line. There is one red link to Yorke Peninsula Railway, but it just says "it's not in Adelaide", and one red link to Kadina and Wallaroo Railway and Pier Company. There are 26 pages in Category:Closed railway lines in South Australia! Eyre Peninsula and Barossa Valley each got grouped as they had a common root. Maybe the Mallee lines should be similarly merged to the Tailem Bend root, but that is a second stage once the basics are captured.

I think Peterborough-Quorn was a link to an existing line through Quorn, so it should probably get its own article, several of the towns will need a wikilink added to the text once the article has a name. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that as well - this gives me a bit to work on. I feel like most of your naming decisions (as far as going out from Gawler) seem completely logical - except Peterborough railway line, which confuses the heck out of me (and irritatingly, no one seems to agree on what to call it in any easily-found online sources). I feel like merging the Mallee routes is unnecessary: we can delineate lines just fine if they have a common root - it's where they have a common terminus as well that things get headache-inducing. I think having this conversation has given me enough to work with in that I can probably work from about half the lines, but it'd be good to come up with a more overarching solution eventually (and it might require books judging by the lack of stuff online so far). I might see if I can dig up anything secondhand online. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like I created Peterborough railway line, so probably named and scoped it with my unrecognised bias - by the time I was old enough to know anything about railway lines, it was broad gauge to Peterborough. It is possible that we should have Terowie railway line from Roseworthy to Terowie, and the new article for Terowie to Quorn, if we work on original construction based on the dates in Peterborough railway station, South Australia#History. If we are rigid about original construction, then Loxton railway line needs to be rescoped too, as that article currently describes the line as it was used from the 1990s to 2015. Perhaps the best solution for the remaining links is to name them by both ends? e.g. Peterborough–Quorn railway line, there are already red links for Port Wakefield railway line referring to the original line serving the port from Halbury, Port Wakefield–Moonta railway line and Brinkworth–Kadina railway line to cover the others. Mount Gambier railway line might need either renaming or splitting to cover the lines that stretched inland from Beachport and Robe, but eventually all linked up. With no Trove this week, it's probably not a good time to try to work out what they used to be called. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea a lot - but very true, a bad week to sort it out! The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I shall look into filling in those three red links for railway lines in the next week or so. They seem like credible names that I think I have seen in sources anyway. Port Broughton railway line never intersected any others, so is a lower priority red link than finishing out the southeast network in Mount Gambier railway line (or new supplementary articles). --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

More railway article issues. The route diagram on Dry Creek-Port Adelaide railway line shows a number of sidings/branches annotated with organisations that no longer exist. Is there anyone here who knows if those parts of the diagram should be coloured as closed, or renamed to a successor company? The ones I have spotted as out of date are:

• Western Mining
• Viterra
• One Steel (piped link to Arrium
• Penrice Soda Products

There could be others in the labels that are not wikilinked. Can anyone help me update it? Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jubilee 150 Walkway has been nominated for discussion

Category:Jubilee 150 Walkway, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Recreation Parks of South Australia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Recreation Parks of South Australia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

The above was recently pasted onto my talk page. For your information, a ‘Recreation Park’ is one of the five types of protected areas that are listed in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 with the other four being national parks, game reserves, conservation parks and regional reserves. Recreation parks are officially described by DEWNR as 'areas managed for public recreation and enjoyment in a natural setting.'

They also listed in the Australian government’s Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) where they are all categorised as IUCN Category III (Natural Monument or Feature) with the exception of Granite Island Recreation Park which is a IUCN Category IV (Habitat/Species Management Area).

I consider the nomination to be somewhat vague as a read of ‘categorization guidelines’ suggests that the category does fully comply. A search of WP articles has revealed a number of articles whose titles included the words “Recreation Park”. These articles are generally about sports venues such as baseball fields and soccer grounds.

Being the creator of both the category and nine of the articles within the category, I have voted to ‘oppose’ any deletion, renaming and merging of the category on the basis that the category does complies with WP requirements. I would encourage other members of WikiProject South Australia who agree with me to also vote in opposition to the nomination.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

SA Government Gazettes now available online

Hi everyone, the bulk of the South Australian Government Gazette published prior to 1 January 2000 has been scanned and is now available online at South Australian Government Gazettes. This adds to the collection of gazettes published after 1 January 2000 in PDF and DOC format which can be viewed at Gazette Archive. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fantastically helpful. Thanks for pointing it out! The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

New 5000 Challenge for Australia

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge and the wider Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Australia and Oceania like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Australia but fuelled by a contest if desirable to really get articles on every state/territory and subject mass improved. After every 100 articles done for Australia this would feed into the main Oceania one. I will start a 1000 one for your state if there is the support. I would like some support from wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start anyway with some articles to make doing a Destubathon for Australia and Oceania worthwhile! Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

South Australian Land Company

Tidying up the dab page at SALC I found a section about this company at European_settlement_of_South_Australia#South_Australian_Land_Company (no date, no source, but next para implies it's pre-1833), and also a redirect to South Australian Company, founded 1835, where this company title isn't mentioned. I've retargetted the redirect to the section discussing it, but someone who knows about South Australian history might like to sort this out. Over to you. PamD 21:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Heritage surveys available for downloading from the DEWNR website

Hi everyone,

The following webpage on the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) appears to be a comprehensive list of all heritage survey reports published by DEWNR and its predecessors - Heritage surveys. While I have not looked at all them yet, I would assumed that these would be only concerned with places, i.e. buildings and other structures (including parts of buildings et al) , groups of buildings, open spaces such as streets and so on. While these surveys are part of the knowledge base used for the South Australian Heritage Register, please note that not all of the places contained within the survey reports have a listing on the register.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Oakden scandal

SA locals, the Oakden aged mental health facility scandal has gotten huge and I believe notable enough for Wikipedia but I don't know where to start it. I added something at Oakden, South Australia#History so a search for 'Oakden scandal' at least turns up something. Donama (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Local Government Areas (Re-arrangement) Acts 1929 and 1931

The District Councils Act 1887 is such a useful article that I started a draft for Draft:Local Government Areas (Re-arrangement) Acts 1929 and 1931, the content for which is all at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/sa_gazette/1935/13.pdf Please pitch in if you can! Donama (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad you find the District Councils Act article useful! Great idea to do the 1930s reforms - I held off when I did the 1887 ones because I couldn't work out how to name them (although I still would be inclined to maybe name it Local Government Commission (South Australia) since the 1929 and 1931 Acts didn't do much on their own). This said - I'm a bit confused about it starting in 1933 - what about the ton of councils merged from the Local Government Commission in 1932? The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Um I wasn't sure when it started to be implemented, so all that can be fixed, including the name -- good point -- while in draft form. Donama (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Colony or Province

Was South Australia a colony or a province or both? If both, were they synonyms or different concepts (like a district council is different to a Hundred)?

Currently Province of South Australia is part of the Anglican church and Colony of South Australia redirects to History of South Australia which uses "Province" 6 times and "colony" 32 times (predominantly with a lower-case 'c'). The infobox there suggests that an entity named Province of South Australia was an instance of a crown colony, but does not explicitly state that. Letters Patent establishing the Province of South Australia seems to support that interpretation, which makes me wonder if I need to propose some page and category renames. Any thoughts or counter arguments? --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have now asked a similar question at WP:AWNB#Colony or Province for broader input, so any replies should probably be there now unless they are specific to SA. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming conference - Wikimedia Australia Community Conference, Sydney, 15 June 2019

For more information, please see Wikimedia Australia Community Conference, Sydney, 15 June 2019 JarrahTree 10:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Etymology for Aboriginal place names - source to consider

In trying to unravel the origin for our local historic place name, Yatala, I came across a really nice resource (see below, readable for free) at on ANU website which is a chapter by Adelaide Uni's Rob Amery in a book about Aboriginal place names. Amery has carefully unpicked place name meanings from the Adelaide Plains with which many of us might be familiar. The main lesson is to not just trust Manning or Cockburn or Tindale or any of the well-meaning experts from way back. And to note that a connotative meaning for an Aboriginal word is different from the literal. I hope it's useful in checking etymology for the many SA place articles where we make statements like "Blah is from the Kaurna word 'wirrablah' which means 'something incredibly specific like kangaroo hunting ground'" when, as Amery points out, the word merely means 'forest'. The result from trying to observe the various sources (and trying to avoid sounding like original research) is at Hundred of Yatala#Etymology, which I'm sure can be improved.

I didn't really know how to cite it properly but tried with this: Donama (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Chapter 12 'Weeding Out Spurious Etymologies: Toponyms On The Adelaide Plains' (Rob Amery) in: Luise Hercus, Flavia Hodges, Jane Simpson, ed. (March 2009). The Land is a Map: Placenames of Indigenous Origin in Australia. ANU Press. p. 165-180. ISBN 9781921536571. Yatala most likely derives from yertalla 'water running by the side of a river; inundation; cascade'. As Manning (1986:238) observes 'in winter when water flowed from the hills, over the plains, the Dry Creek area became a morass'.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

Hi Donama, Thanks for the interesting post. I have the following comments:

1. It would appear that Amery’s paper only applies to “Kaurna country” and not to other parts of SA.
2. For the purposes of the Wikipedia, I think it would be prudent is to consider the paper to just be another source that can be used in conjunction with Cockburn & Manning. Amery does point out in his concluding comments that “in the final analysis, however, in most cases we simply cannot be certain of the 'true' etymology.” Also, the paper is dated 2002 and therefore it is reasonable to ask if any further work has been done on lists of placenames used by Kaurna as well as those used by Ngarrindjeri and Ramindjeri people. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Further to this, and WRT if any further work has been done, I assume this is all very much ongoing. I wrote to Amery 2 years ago and he pointed out that they've been able to reconstruct the almost-extinct Kaurna language to the point elders or parents are now able to raise kids to be semi-native speakers. Here are the relevant chapters of 'The Land Is a Map' from 2009 (not 2002) which is after all fairly recent.

Amery, Rob; Buckskin, Vincent (Jack) Kanya (March 2009), "Chapter 10. Pinning down Kaurna names: Linguistic issues arising in the development of the Kaurna Placenames Database" (PDF), in Hercus, Luise; Hodges, Flavia; Simpson, Jane (eds.), The Land is a Map: Placenames of Indigenous Origin in Australia, ANU Press, p. 202-203, ISBN 978-1-921536-57-1

Amery, Rob (March 2009), "Chapter 12. Weeding Out Spurious Etymologies: Toponyms On The Adelaide Plains" (PDF), in Hercus, Luise; Hodges, Flavia; Simpson, Jane (eds.), The Land is a Map: Placenames of Indigenous Origin in Australia, ANU Press, p. 165-180, ISBN 978-1-921536-57-1, Yatala most likely derives from yertalla 'water running by the side of a river; inundation; cascade'. As Manning (1986:238) observes 'in winter when water flowed from the hills, over the plains, the Dry Creek area became a morass'.

Just 2 years ago he published another book about Kaurna language Warra Kaurna Yalaka, Warra Kaurna Pukinangku. Kaurna Language Today, Kaurna Language from Long Ago. (available at Adelaide Uni library link) which is not specifically about place names, but may help generally with articles that have some connection to Kaurna language. Donama (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

regional navboxes

This comes from a discussion that started at template talk:Eyre Peninsula, but should really be wider. There are a number of quite large navboxes for regions of South Australia. It would be good to determine some objective criteria for making these look much the same as each other.

Cowdy001 and I have recently trimmed (!) the Eyre Peninsula one, but also added the infrastructure section. If these are a good idea, lets try to make them all have roughly equivalent levels of information, and perhaps create them for Mid North, Murray Mallee, Adelaide Plains etc. Does anybody else have any comments on

• whether these templates should exist
• What sections should be in them
• What should not be in them
• Objective criteria for keeping them down to a manageable size
• Should we make any others (and which ones)?
• Should the navbox be transcluded in every article it links to, and only the articles it links to?

Thank you to anyone who chooses to join the discussion. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the standardisation idea is a good move considering some of the others are quite poor. Eyre Peninsula is pretty sensible, and is probably a good model to use to standardise the others, except that dividing coastal features/islands by coast bloats the navbox a fair bit and I'm not sure of the benefit. I think it might be worth adopting some form of the split used on the others but having "major towns/other localities" as the two box so there's not places in the area that aren't listed in the navbox. Yorke Peninsula is pretty similar to Eyre but I don't know that it needs a different sub-box for each type of protected area when it's obvious if they're un-piped, and there isn't tons of them (Limestone Coast is the only one where there's actually enough of these to need splitting). I would think about making indigenous groups (listed as "other and uncategoriesed" for Yorke) a standard, "infrastructure" from Eyre seems a good section to make standard, as does "attractions" from Adelaide Hills. Fleurieu is a bit basic generally and could use some work. It may be worth having a section to reference wine regions since every region has one or more in its "uncategorised" section (which is an awkward title to use in a navbox). Adelaide Hills needs a looooot of work. Riverland would make more sense as a region navbox than a "towns in", which is presumably why it's been listed here anyway, and Clare Valley as a region-region navbox instead of a wine-region one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

All of the regions will have a lot of smaller towns/localities that are listed in their LGA navboxes. These boxes would bloat a lot further to include all of the smaller places. "Other" is probably a more neutral term than "Uncategorised" as a grab-bag of things that are related. I included the Towns of the Riverland as they span at least three LGAs. The Clare Valley box already has more than just wine-related things. If we decided to make boxes like this for most of the state, we need to find a way of deciding where the boundaries are, to make sure there is not too much overlap or gaps (eg is Clare Valley part of the Mid North, what region is Goolwa in). --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. I think an easier way of proceeding could be to just sort out the boxes you already for known regions rather than necessarily trying to cover the whole state with regional navboxes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed we need to fix the ones we have before considering adding to them. I removed the non-linked towns from Fleurieu and linked the rest of the conservation parks as non-links are not helpful in a navbox (noted here as it will change what later readers see above). --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

George Strickland Kingston

Could I please have a few more eyes over George Strickland Kingston? In particular, was he incompetent, or was he Light's saviour? See Talk:George Strickland Kingston#Donna the dog and Kingston's competence for more specific concerns. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

1885 Notable South Australians

I stumbled across a book on Wikisource called Notable South Australians published in 1885. I am working through which ones already have Wikipedia articles in User:ScottDavis/sandbox3. Some of the people with no article have fairly short biographies in this book too, but if the author thought them notable, there may be contemporary newspaper sources available through Trove.

Can I have encouragement that once there are no blue links to the wrong people in this list, it is worth making a subsidiary of this project as either a to-do list, or at least a monitor checklist? Or am I wasting my time on a wet Saturday afternoon? Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug butler: - you appear in the history of most of the articles I looked at, do you have an opinion on this source? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Scott, thanks for the ping. I picked up a copy from Adelaide Booksellers back when it was upstairs in Rundle Street, thinking I had a real gem, but became a little disillusioned after a time — can't remember any specifics, but there were notable absentees; perfunctory entries for people I thought deserved a page and vice-versa, and some variability in style and content. I came to the conclusion that Loyau was an early practitioner of that class of editor/publisher who writes decent bios of a handful of dignitaries as a prospectus, then invites a large number to contribute their own, in the sure knowledge that they will purchase a copy or two if the binding is handsome enough. It sat on the bookshelf alongside J. H. Heaton and May Vivienne, then I found the .pdf online, and around the same time became infatuated with Trove, and contributed the Loyau to a church fund-raising auction. So, in short, I think what's in there is mostly reliable but possibly self-serving. Doug butler (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I shall continue my project, and when there are no wrong blue links left, move it into project space (probably as copy-paste, so as not to bring the prior history of my sandbox). Some of the short profiles might never be worthy of Wikipedia, but I noticed a few that were of moderate length (a very long paragraph) that mostly were pre-colonisation, and the Wikipedia article was mostly post-migration, so there would be material to add from those. There seemed to be a lot of organists (for example) in the ones I looked at (probably names that are already disambiguation pages), so they may never be made into Wikipedia articles. It looks like there are presently 50 wrong links, and about 95 right ones out of about 295 total. There may be some more that should link up but initials and full names haven't matched yet. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: Late to the party, but please do move your page to project space, as it provides a useful overview of our coverage. On a similar note, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia/To-do/SA History Hub, which does the same thing for the topics covered by SA History Hub/Adelaidia. Somnifuguist (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. My work on the project had slowed to a crawl (at best). I have moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia/To-do/Notable South Australians 1885. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

CFS appliances

Does anybody have the time and inclination to update (or shorten and generalise) Country Fire Service appliances? It looks like most of the content is 10-15 years old, but I don't know enough to be certain what is wrong as my own experience is even older. I fixed the formatting of the citations to archived web sites, but those URLs are no longer current. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Special surveys

Has anybody written anything about the Special Surveys that marked out some of the good bits of farmland in the first few years of the colony (1836-1841)? They pre-dated the system of Hundreds and are mentioned in passing in articles about some of the early towns and people but I haven't seen a comprehensive article such as Special surveys of South Australia or an expansion of Lands administrative divisions of South Australia#Land division history (they are currently the first sentence of the second paragraph of that section). There's a couple of pages at South Australian History but that doesn't provide many references. I've not tried newspapers and gazettes yet. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable source

I did not use the script above, but I have removed ontherunvictims.com as a source from four articles this morning. In three of them I also removed the sentence or paragraph that reference purported to support. The website is far from neutral, and the Wikipedia text was nowhere near NPOV either.

• Racism in Australia
• ‎ Timeline of antisemitism in the 21st century
• ‎ On the Run (convenience store)
• The Bend Motorsport Park

It might be worth keeping an eye out for its return. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

9

7 93.66.87.105 (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary ", South Australia" in hundreds of place names

I have noticed that most South Australian place names include ", South Australia" in them. For instance there are the articles Murray Bridge, South Australia, Nuriootpa, South Australia, Renmark, South Australia etc.; and the corresponding disambiguation pages Murray Bridge, Nuriootpa, Renmark, etc. In these three cases (and, I suspect, nearly every other one of the hundreds of pages like this), the town is the primary topic, and the alternatives at the disambiguation pages are either relatively obscure pages (like Rural City of Murray Bridge), or pages which do not strictly belong at a disambiguation page (like Murray Bridge Airport). So I think the ", South Australia" in most of these names is unnecessary, and goes against WP policy.

So I propose that in nearly all these cases, we rename "X" to "X (disambiguation)" and "X, South Australia" to "X". For instance, Murray Bridge to Murray Bridge (disambiguation) and Murray Bridge, South Australia to Murray Bridge. The only exceptions should be towns where the "South Australia" is needed to disambiguate it from another place or thing elsewhere in the world, for instance Mount Pleasant.

Policies in support of dropping "South Australia" from the names:

• "Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article." -- WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
• "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles" -- WP:CRITERIA
• "Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." -- WP:CRITERIA, my emphasis.

I realise I am talking about many hundreds of articles (it looks like most of the 1056 matches at Category:Towns in South Australia), so this will need a script. But although there is no rush, I think this should be corrected. Adpete (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I've not found it restrictive in writing articles, quite handy usually. I believe it's the outcome of extensive discussion some 15 or 20 years ago, and has the advantage of being predictable: even when the State can be inferred and doesn't bear repetition, you know [[Bowden, South Australia|Bowden]] is going to work. Doug butler (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The above-mentioned On the Run (convenience store)#Controversies could do with more localization. As far as I can see, every item refers to SA, but "Kensington" could be anywhere — until you click on the link. Doug butler (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The current convention is supported by WP:NCAUST, and applies to towns and localities across Australia, not just South Australia. The naming convention used to be stronger with only a handful of well-known exceptions, but has been watered down over the years by people who identified selected places with unique names and argued that nothing else could ever have the same name.

WP:TITLE in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Including the state sometimes to aid concision in the other cases reduces precision and consistency. As there are still many places that do not yet have articles, a strong naming convention means that the LGA navigation templates, birthplaces of notable people etc can reliably identify the intended article with a red link, and not end up with several interpretations. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 04:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If you really want to change this convention, then I suggest you bring this up at WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board as the same applies to all the states and territories of Australia and it would be silly to move only places in South Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to those who pointed me to the Australia-wide policy, which I somehow missed. In reply to the argument that it makes it easier for editors (knowing that always including the state is sure to work), I say that the goal of the highest quality encyclopedia comes ahead of the conveniences of us editors, and that is reflected in the three policies I quoted above. I might eventually raise this at WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, but (a) at a minimum I will have to find and read the old discussions; and (b) I know from experience that trying to change a policy is hard work and not guaranteed to succeed. TLDR: I still think it's the right thing to do, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort! (revised reply) Adpete (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)