Jump to content

Talk:Lands administrative divisions of South Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation of hundred and county articles

[edit]
Update (11 August 2017): Todo list moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia/Historic places. Donama (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also, discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Australia#Hundreds and Counties Donama (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todo list

[edit]

I have set us the task (below) of creating the following 4 counties worth of hundred articles or adding information to the relevent locality article about the hundred where a locality inside the hundred has the same (or almost the same) name. To me the highest priority is hundred articles where the name doesn't hint as to where it is in SA via well known geographic feature or by well known locality. Donama (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Hundred is larger than the modern LOCB with the same name, but similar to a (historic) District Council, are we better to put the Hundred history and topography in the DC article rather than the smaller locality article? Do we have much to say about each Hundred that is distinctive once the district council merged larger and the settlements broken up into smaller towns and localities, or is most Hundred info about its founding and early settlement? It feels odd (to choose an extreme case) to consider a current article that would include West Lakes to Golden Grove, both in the Hundred of Yatala, whereas there could be quite a bit of interesting history to record there. --Scott Davis Talk 04:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, you're absolutely right in the case where the boundaries of the historic council aligned or roughly aligned with the hundred. Would you be able to update the todo list to direct to the relevant DC articles where present? Even if you could just come up with a couple of examples. So far I couldn't find one where the historic DC article actually exists. Donama (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found one with a DC article that has already been written. The examples I have thought of with no article for either the hundred or the DC yet include Kulpara, Clinton, Belvidere, Mudla Wirra, Apoinga (I don't think we even have an article for any of the extant LOCBs in that Hundred yet), English. --Scott Davis Talk 13:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know: these LGAs are all on my to-do list, and fairly high up on them: if Trove was working right now I'd get stuck into them tonight. I agree with basically all the other suggestions though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to organise the todo list below to include the district councils (or other LGAs) that are located in or close within the bounds of the relevant hundred and attacking each hundred with a fine toothed comb. I've only just finished Hundred of Yatala to my satisfaction (i.e. have all the necessary stubs and links in place at least) thought clearly plenty more work could be done. A lot of work to do! Donama (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Popped out the incomplete todo list to subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia/Historic places. Now could easily be moved. Donama (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on to do list

[edit]

@Donama: I think you are doing a great job in finding and sorting out all of these former district councils and their relationships to the towns and Hundreds. I would say don't be too cautious about creating new articles. Don't try to wedge a Hundred into a town article or a locality into a Hundred article if they don't fit. If there is less than 50% overlap, then it is probably better to make separate articles. In closer settlement, there are multiple suburbs/towns/localities in each Hundred (Hd of Yatala being the extreme example). Further out, there are localities that span several hundreds, including the one that bears its name. There might not be much to say about each Hundred in those cases, so it might be OK to list the Hundreds in the locality article. Let us know if there are specific things you would like to farm out to other editors.

Another thing I've noticed is that we have a good collection of articles in Category:Pastoral leases in South Australia which seem to mostly have names that match localities. Most of these should probably be treated as also the locality article, but there might be exceptions there too. An example I spotted yesterday is Kappawanta. Kappawanta, South Australia contains Hundred of Kappawanta, but also Hundred of Blesing, Hundred of Hudd and bits of a couple of others. The cadastral map clearly shows these have far fewer sections/allotments than the surrounding Hundreds, so I assume the pastoral lease has never been called in for subdivision. --Scott Davis Talk 14:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making this a subsection of above for readability. I have moved the todo list to Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia/Historic places for better exposure to South Australia wiki project. Donama (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counties

[edit]

I am looking at making the master list of counties "County of Z" instead of "County of Z, South Australia". It turns out to have a lot of redirects in place that might be replaceable with hatnotes, and a few name clashes. For now I'll leave the table here as I had time for the bulk change (tool assisted), but not the detail now. --Scott Davis Talk 04:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[removed from here a table of suggested county articles to make this more readable] Donama (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Scott. Suggest, like with the Hundred articles we optimistically avoid pre-disambiguating with the form 'County of X, South Australia' and stick to 'County of X'. The following counties which will need disambiguating are a small percent of the whole list: Donama (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[removed from here a list of suggested county article disambiguations to make this more readable; all problematic ones resolved now] Donama (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are redirects to things that are generally not known by that name, so a hatnote on "our" article would be sufficient, replacing the redirect. The Queensland clashes look like we might need either a comma or parentheses. --Scott Davis Talk 06:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We chose paren rather than comma for disambiguation of Hundreds, I'd assume the same for Counties.

[removed from here a list of suggested county article disambiguations to make this more readable; all problematic ones resolved now] Donama (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, we should create the seven new articles to replace the redirects if possible, not delete and leave red links, and better than making County of Z (South Australia) then moving it. --Scott Davis Talk 05:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll create them per your advice. With possible exceptions... Buckinghamshire literally means County Buckingham (County of Buckingham, Buckinghamshire is an ungainly tautology). Anyway, I think it's fair to leave that alone and create a disambiguated one for here in SA. Same for Derbyshire and Yorkshire. They're too big and historic and it wouldn't surprise me if some weird Northern dialects in England call them county x instead of x Shire! Donama (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like creating them at "County of Blah" for the same reasons we renamed the hundreds, and parenthesis rather than commas so they don't get mangled with the locality articles (again same as for the hundreds). It's great to see the disambiguation mess getting cleaned up, but County articles is one thing I'm not volunteering for! The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Main article list is updated according to the above - for the ones identified as being able to take over a current redirect, I have made the links as County of X (South Australia) for now so I don't have to make the articles today too. --Scott Davis Talk 04:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I had just created an article for the County of Carnarvon (South Australia) and discovered this discussion after doing a search for 'what links here'. For your information, I have treated the article as a 'list' written as prose in order to have a brief description under a sub-heading for each of the constituent hundreds to both satisfy the needs of the reader and to allow the use of piped links from other articles, rather than just a list of 'redlinks'. Some maps would be nice in order to illustrate the extent of the counties and hundreds. By the way, I may be interested in doing articles for the countries of Fergusson and Flinders, and possibly others. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the county articles that had ambiguity problems/Wikipedia clashes are resolved now to at least a start article unless I missed some stubs. Summary below:
Cheers Donama (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

historic maps

[edit]

The State Library of South Australia has provided a batch of historic cadastral maps (marked Public Domain, I assume due to their age) on Flickr at [1]. They look like a great resource to decorate Hundred articles. I think they belong in commons:Category:Cadastral maps of South Australia but uploading one at a time looks tedious and I have failed to get Flickr2Commons to transfer them. Does anyone else have either more patience or better expertise on tools? --Scott Davis Talk 13:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Commons Flickr batch upload request page, and have added a request but I don't know how quickly that page might get processed. --Scott Davis Talk 21:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC) [links fixed once I realised they were broken --Scott Davis Talk 05:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC) ][reply]
It seems that the batch upload queues are essentially dead as nobody services them any more. I had another go at Flickr2Commons and it seems to be in the process of uploading all the maps.I'm not sure I have the PD template in exactly the right place, but it looks like it is going to work, so I have withdrawn the batch request and am just waiting for the uploads to complete. --Scott Davis Talk 11:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. Super useful to me, anyway. It looks like the PD template needs to be moved to the licensing section of each description page on commons. I have done it on commons:File:Hundred of Adelaide, 1873 (21789249432).jpg and hand wrote an actual description in the description field. Can we automate this? I've never actually tried to write or run a bot. Donama (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't know if it can be automated either - does AutoWikiBrowser work on Commons? Commons seems to have bots that monitor copyright, so something might come through and tidy up automatically. I don't think the tags as they stand are wrong, just that they aren't very neat, so for now, I am considering them "good enough".
The categories I deliberately added are commons:Category:Cadastral maps of South Australia and commons:Category:Files from the State Library of South Australia. Any others were guessed by Flickr2Commons.
If you click through to the source of each image, there's a longer description field which links to the library catalog, which I hoped Flickr2Commons would have copied through, but it seems that it didn't.
A bunch of files in the middle failed on the first batch run as something chose to throttle my access (not sure if it was downloads or uploads), and a few others failed for no apparent reason. The second and third runs through, I moved the PD template down nearer the categories, but it still doesn't seem to be recognised nicely by the tools. A few images have failed again, so I might have another go tonight but the "ignore files that are already on Commons" doesn't seem to work except for putting a symbol next to them in the list, so I need to go down the list and tick a box on the left next to any files that don't have a red mark on the extreme right side of the screen. I'm not sure if Flickr has a complete set for all hundreds, but some of them have several different maps from different points in history (so you can see railway easements added for example). --Scott Davis Talk 01:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lands_administrative_divisions_of_South_Australia&oldid=1203482204"