Talk:Lands administrative divisions of South Australia

message: :Update (11 August 2017): Todo list moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia/Historic places. Donama (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Creation of hundred and county articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Todo list

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments on to do list