Talk:St Johns, South Australia

Australia: South Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal St Johns, South Australia 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (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 South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Belvidere

I'm not sure if it's right to say that Belvidere is/was in St Johns. It might be just as accurate to put it the other way round - the Hundred of Belvidere contains what are now St Johns, Koonunga, Moppa, Ebenezer, and St Kitts, as well as parts of Truro (the bit in Light Council), Bagot Well, Nuriootpa (also the bit in Light), Greenock and Fords. The District Council of Belvidere met in Koonunga Hall.

Maybe the solution is to split this article to move the Belvidere info to Hundred of Belvidere, South Australia? We've got a couple of "hundred" articles that worked better as place articles already I think, because the hundred name was the only name ever used for the locality which never had a town as such. Pinkawillinie, South Australia is one example, and that is still the LOCB name too. That is why Hundred of Belvidere was bolded in this article - that redirects to it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have no problem with creating "Hundred of Blah" articles for rural areas where it's the main identifying feature for most of white history, and this is a good example of when they might be useful. The only thing is that District Council of Belvidere is on my to-do list (and I can do it now than later if it's easier) as part of my SA historical LGA project, and that might wind up basically duplicating a hypothetical "Hundred of Belvidere" article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is enough distinct information to have separate Hundred, District Council and LOCU articles. I don't know enough to be confident which ones should be a section in the article about which other, it could go either way depending what gets written, but likely the information currently here about Belvidere might get moved. The standard we are following for places is that we are creating articles for current LOCB places, and documenting former and informal localities that fall inside them. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like in that case it makes sense to do the District Council one (since they're all getting articles anyway) to cover the larger area, and mention the area as being part of/known as the Hundred of Belvedere in the locality articles as well, with Hundred of Belvidere, South Australia redirecting to the council as the clearest match (rather than redirecting to a random modern locality within it). Easily enough done, and I can write the article about it tomorrow. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I suspect that you will find there is close to a one-to-one match between hundreds and original district councils, especially after the Strangways Land Act. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's true more broadly - most of those I've been writing (I'm fanning out from Port Augusta and Port Pirie) seem to have covered several hundreds from the get-go (and hadn't been subject to mergers). Nonetheless that's beside the point here and I'll go write Belvidere today! The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the PLB name history for St Johns it said the bounded locality was created (sometime in the 1990s I think) based on the "long established name" even though I'd never heard of it. That's why I did this move. It seems clear enough that the hundred names were more dominant in the past. In modern SA though, the bounded localities are winning the notability contest on Wikipedia at least. The physical area may well be known as Belvidere, but the nobody told the gazetteers. If it makes more sense, I don't see a problem with redirecting St Johns LOCB article to the Hundred of Belvidere article and describing St Johns there. Donama (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's arguing with having an article on the locality: just the sentence "Belvidere (34°21′14″S 138°56′55″E) is a historic locality in the bounded locality of St Johns" (and what comes after it as context). This should definitely have an article, and shifting the broader content to District Council of Belvidere solves that issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Donama: St Johns definitely exists, and has a predominantly Catholic history. I might even dig up some photos from the cemetery, as the home for single women (name from memory) is either a ruin or not accessible to the public (or both). There is a moving memorial to their unnamed babies buried along the fenceline. My concern was that I think Belvidere is a bigger area than St Johns, not the other way round. Belvedere Road goes from Nuriootpa to the Kapunda-Truro Road east of Koonunga. St Johns is closer to Kapunda. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]