Talk archives

21 October 2005 — 14 May 2006 19 May 2006 — 7 January 2007 24 March 2007 — 9 September 2009 14 November 2009 — 16 December 2010 19 January 2011 — 18 November 2015

Please feel welcome to post a message here. I will either respond on your page or ping you from here. —Donama

Thanks for your efforts! Unprofessional, what the. I was nice throughout to her but right from the beginning she sounded like an up-tight prude. I wouldn't laugh if she didn’t even know what Wikipedia is. I've never contacted an MP's office by phone or email for anything RE: Wikipedia before, and based on this experience, I never will again. My appreciation for Flickr/CC and potential after-effects grows ever stronger. Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama. I have been working my way around some of SA's former railways and creating or updating the articles about the railways and the towns they passed through. I'm currently working my way up the Gladstone railway line, and puzzled by the station between Blyth and Brinkworth. The reference I used for the route ([1]) shows the station name as Anama, but the PLB shows it as Hart Railway Station with the Anama LOCB further northeast, and things called Anama spread across the region. I have not hit on the right search terms to get a useful answer from Trove, as there seem to be news articles sourced from Anama talking about activities at Hart (such as building and fundraising in the hall). Do you have any better sources or hints? Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't help you. I've never paid attention to the historic stations along that historic line. If I remember right, the rail crossing at Blyth had been completely dismantled by the time I was old enough to notice. It looks like your historic source is correct. It seems perfectly plausible in 1910 that the station and wider locality be named after a farm/estate (Anama, HMSD) located 10km east if there were few other noteworthy landmarks at the time. Then when today's localities were gazetted to use the name of the local (cadastral) hundred name to label the smaller bounded locality and rename the rail station at the same time. I don't have the dates for any of this. The article on Hart, South Australia doesn't exist yet but I'd put money on it being named for John Hart who had holdings "North of Kapunda" and some interest in the Burra mines among others. Let's get the Hart article up and perhaps that could further elucidate? :) Donama (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You were right about the origin of the name of hart, South Australia, It is in the Hundred of Hart, named for John Hart (South Australian colonist), who was also an MP and Treasurer at the time. There will be more reading to determine the full background. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Do you have any idea how notable the bulk of the content of Whitwarta, South Australia is? It reads rather like some of the family history books I have, but I can't work out how to shorten it besides completely deleting unreferenced sections. I've defaced several sections with citation needed and unreferenced templates, but that only makes the story ugly. Thanks.

One of the reasons I looked at the article is that the WikiMiniAtlas shows Whitwarta instead of Balaklava at several zoom levels, and the main reason seems to be because the article is so much longer.--Scott Davis ^Talk 11:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No doubting it. If you drove through and had a microsleep you'd miss it! Although don't do that as the bridge is near a tricky curve. Then there's the Balaklava Gliding Club at Whitwarta which is slightly notable, but I didn't see it mentioned in the article. Someone has done a remarkable job with this. I'm inclusionist so feel that we shouldn't remove information just because a tiny locality article has more detail than the Balaklava article. Obviously it needs work. I'm going to mentally put this on my things to do list. Donama (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Donama: Thank you. I don't know if I've ever been there, but apparently one of my wife's 3-great grandmothers lived there when she died, so I have a family connection too. I agree about not removing stuff just because there is more of it. I do have concerns that it's more of a story than an encyclopaedia article, but don't know where else it should be. I've just edited out an entire newspaper article that broadly said "the bridge had an official opening and politicians made speeches about the issues of the day". --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The district council in question in Whitwarta in 1914 is almost certainly Hall DC (see A HISTORY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIAN COUNCILS to 1936 (2012) and search for "Hall DC") since it was later split between Balaklava DC and Blyth DC but I couldn't find ironclad proof. Donama (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>> Any more? Go here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Australia#Hundreds and Counties

I'm happy to move this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Australia or elsewhere if you would prefer

1. Thank you 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)[reply]

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) 01:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

>> Any more? Go here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Australia#Hundreds and Counties

Point Boston is a bounded locality, not just a geographical feature - please check before going for the redirect! Sorry to have to be a harpy - I'm still working on localities in that area so I'll get to it shortly but current LOCBs getting redirected is a pet hate of mine. (It's also not in, or adjacent to, Boston!) The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my oversight. If it still needs fixing I'll fix it. Donama (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good - already got to it! The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please not redirect these LOCB topics? There are several of us trying to get articles on all of these and you just rendered the locality lists for Murray Bridge useless in determining what does and doesn't have articles because now half of those that don't have unhelpful blue-links. I know you do a lot of good work, but this really hampers the efforts of others of us trying to tackle this, and it's not like you didn't know those were LOCBs and so were notable. Doing so many at a time (and on somewhere I'm not currently working on) means that's just going to be a mess that's going to get forgotten about instead of getting done with all the other localities. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the bother here. There were some LOCBs redirecting to Murray Bridge and it was inconsistent. The local council template didn't even have links and the list had typos. Now it *is* consistent. I don't think redlinks for these suburbs was the best way to ensure people knew the article wasn't there as zero (that is, none) existed. A redirect to Murray Bridge is a way to let everyone know no specific content yet exists. I did some similar work around Moonta, South Australia because it had the same problem. Donama (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but I'm literally running around fixing these council templates and lists today (I did a bunch of the Murray councils last night), and there's a lot less point in going to the trouble if they're all just random redirects to the nearest town. If you'd held off, there would have been a correct list without typos by, like, tonight.

I can fix a couple of LOCBs that are redirecting to a centre (as with, for example, Point Boston, which was no trouble), but I can't do it if someone goes and does all of them because that's days of concentrated work to do them properly, so those ones necessarily get shunted to to the bottom of the pile as too much of a headache. Redirecting to the nearest centre doesn't tell readers no content exists until they click the link and discover that the article they've been sent to doesn't even mention the place let alone contain any useful information, but it does make it much, much harder for editors trying to expand coverage to know that no content yet exists, to ensure that the "yet" doesn't come permanent, and to keep track of what does and does not need work.

I really find this one of the most disheartening things about making concerted efforts to fill in red links - people creating redirects on topics they know are notable to articles that contain nothing about the topic the link came from really does make that task so much harder. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do take your point. I truly apologise for being a force for disheartening you. Let me be more careful in future! Donama (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've obviously noticed your diligent work around Moonta lately and believe the same can be done for Murray Bridge (and probably other regional centres in SA) so I've started a little project to atone for my sins at User:Donama/Murray Bridge suburbs. Any help welcomed. Donama (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's not the worst in these cases because they're relevant enough to my interests that I don't mind, but it's just a few days work to fix each one (and a few weeks of wiki-article-writing time) so it's not something I'd like people to make a habit of. I found Moonta quite fun because tracing the history of these little communities is an interesting project, and I already would have done the same in the Burra area except unfortunately the geographic authorities just merged all the equivalents into a massive Burra locality. Breaking them out also makes a lot of things make more sense - for instance the ABS data for Moonta is incomprehensible unless you can link what parts of non-central Moonta each dataset includes!

I've still got exams for another week but I'm aiming to finish the Copper Coast locality redirects, sort out the Goyder and Copper Coast past LGAs, and then slowly meander down the Murray (there's someone else's old council redirects I need to take care of in Loxton Waikerie too) so I'll probably be able to help out there in a few weeks. :) The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I break out a separate article on the Highercombe council? It existed for 82 years and existed alongside Tea Tree Gully for 77 of them, so I feel that's notable. I think a lot of these cases where there are kind of overlapping councils (like I'm doing a whole bunch at the moment were a District Council got created for a cadastral hundred, the town incorporated leaving the District Council representing nowhere with any people, and that still surviving for 50 years) don't make sense unless they're actually broken out to clearly delineate them, and it also allows for separate lists of chairmen/mayors that would get too long in a merged article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'd already done it when I realised they existed side by side for more than 70 years! Please do it. Donama (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama, I saw a comment you left after missing out on the last meetup in January, and as I've just proposed holding Meetup 18 on 19 May at Port Adelaide, I thought that I'd let you know. There's also a Future meetings page that you could put on your watchlist, in case you haven't already done that. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks it is already in my watchlist. Cheers Donama (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please no with the redirecting of past local governments! It just makes it that much harder to unentangle them because you can't see what doesn't have an article (and should) and it's hard to keep track of the ones that have been randomly redirected and need articles versus those that are actual legitimate redirects. At least this time it's one that's next on my list after Goyder and Copper Coast but it really is a nuisance. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not randomly redirected. I considered carefully before doing this. The District Council of Mobilong and Corporate Town of Murray Bridge were 2 separate LGAs but both (the former in particular) has a continuous history with the present-day Rural City of Murray Bridge so I don't think it's necessarily logical for the separate articles to exist unless, of course, the current article gets big enough to warrant splitting it out, which I'm happy for anyone to do. I can't imagine doing this kind of a redirect in any other case. In fact, I'm keen to fix cases where it's already happened (e.g. City of Holdfast Bay#History). PS where is your todo list? Donama (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshing out former LGAs is exactly what I've been doing for the last six months - and the vast majority of them have "continuous histories" with present LGAs (in the sense that they're completely different entities, one a forerunner of the latter). I'm just glad relatively few of them got redirected or I'm not sure I'd have even been able to unentangle the resulting mess. Since I've been able to write articles on every single former LGA roughly west and north of Port Pirie, I'm going to go ahead and say it's "logical" for them to exist. It's not a matter of "splitting it out" at some hypothetical future point, because information on distinct predecessor organisations is irrelevant to the current LGAs - and so, rightly, editors don't add it to articles. (Half our articles on current LGAs only mention their predecessors at all because I added it as a forerunner to article creation). Redirecting actual topics just makes the creation process heaps difficult, because I have to try and later untangle the legitimate redirects from those that need to be fixed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you working away on the subject of 'counties and hundreds'. As I have some spare time today, I thought I would join the effort and do some work on the counties of Fergusson and Flinders. I have some comments that I will post later. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am currently doing the article for the County of Burra which should be finished later in the week. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama! I don't intend reverting your edits, but are you aware that the -ize spellings are not merely Americanisms, they are also (mostly) preferred by The Times, the Oxford English Dictionary and Fowler's Modern English Usage wherever "-ize" is the pronunciation of the root verb. Exceptions given by Fowler are advertise, advise, apprise, chastise, circumcise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, enterprise, excise, exercise, franchise, improvise, incise, premise, revise, supervise, surmise, surprise and televise. The others can be "stet" rather than "edit". See also "New verbs in -ize" in Fowler. Doug butler (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref your edit comment (Undid revision 776114500 by ScottDavis (talk) - removed because is senator-elect not senator - see http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Whats_On) That page is clearly out of date as the chart is noted "As at 14/03/20117" and the text includes " The timing for the recount is not yet known." The pane on the right showing "Tweets by ‎@AuSenate" includes "Lucy Gichuhi has been formally declared by the High Court as a Senator for South Australia" --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing I undeleted a few short articles, and helping to expand them.

I thought it odd that you included the ford photo on Korunye, South Australia, until I paid attention and looked at Google Streetview, to realise that the photo belongs to Korunye, and not to Pinkerton Plains where it had been in the infobox. I pity the council and emergency services having to deal with a Wasley Road and a Wasleys Road both crossing the Light River a few km out of Mallala in opposite directions! I have removed the picture from Wasleys and Pinkerton Plains articles. Wasleys Road actually has quite a substantial bridge for a dirt road. I wonder if anyone has a photo of it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you credit for three articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge#Article achievements while I was logging my day's efforts. Thanks for helping. I apologise if you have done more that I didn't notice, please add them too. There are a few more short articles I restored but haven't touched yet at User:ScottDavis/redlinks#Restored places if you get bored before I get to them :-) --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This text is way to spammy.[2] Also please see WP:MEDRS about refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc James, thanks for your attention on Vitamin B3 complex. Can you please help with the real issue, which is that the article doesn't help lay people who are going there and looking for information about the human essential micronutrient? Please see the talk page. I have tried to attract attention from microbiology experts but no one has responded. Donama (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of three substances per the first sentences. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you find this new editor's "contributions" disruptive, or am I just a grumpy old man? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His article interests (and references to the Letters Patent) seem very like User:Mifren. Bahudhara (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're as much a grumpy old man as I'm a grumpy old woman. You're not. All of Zbunyip's edits need checking. They are not necessarily incorrect, just look like a new editor going a bit crazy rather than plodding like you or I might :) Some are definitely not NPOV and several seem to be revising the published/verified take on whose land was whose before British settlement. Donama (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama

Thanks for fixing the mess; don't know what happened there: noticed several instances of minus sign for ndash so did search for all minus signs and (manually, individually) replaced those that didn't comply, also a few circas. But somehow great lumps of stuff vanished wherever there was a "-". I use standard old-fashioned Wikipedia edit facility that has no "search and replace" facility or anything like it, so I'm at a loss to understand, but have noticed another queer problem that only recently popped up, so will try resetting my profile.

Incidentally, in UK and Australia "licence" is the noun and "license" the verb. (Fowler's Usage), but I don't make a big deal about it. Doug butler (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good point about license/licence. I was able to revert myself there. Cheers Donama (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work, indeed. Please remember not to link years, dates, or common terms (like "Australia", "village", etc, as random examples). Tony (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to. What are you talking about? Donama (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong editor. I've now left a similar note on D A R C's talkpage. My best. Tony (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Donama (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion stems from a lot of people misreading the 1936 Civic Record: I think when they said "Corporation and District Council of X", they didn't mean that they were one body, just that they had a joint entry in the Civic Record. The entries on the ones that I wrote didn't seem to suggest there was any kind of united body.

I only really know about Kadina because it's the one I researched (including getting out all the local history books), but they were definitely not one organisation and had separate offices. I was working my way across the state from west to east and north to south before I got super busy and ran out of steam and so never got to Clare and Kapunda.

I've been meaning to say this for a while: you should have a look at the 1986 Civic Record. It's vastly better-written than the 1936 one and it's a much better source in every way. I actually sat there and photographed every page because it's impossible to get outside of a State Library these days.

Okay, so I've gone back through my photographs - I also caught a few other resources when I hit up the SLSA last November:

This is what "A Glossary of Local Government Areas in South Australia, 1840-1985 by E. Jane Robbins and John R. Robbins has to say:

District Council of Kapunda

• 5 July 1866
• 1 December 1892 absorbed the District Council of Light
• 12 May 1932 (to take effect 23 May 1932) absorbed the District Councils of Belvidere and portions of the District Councils of Hamilton and Gilbert
• 22 June 1933 portion of the District Council of Swan Reach added
• 12 May 1934 portion added from the District Council of Riverton
• 28 June 1962 Corporate Town of Kapunda and the District Council of Kapunda united as the District Council of Kapunda

Corporate Town of Kapunda

• 13 July 1865
• 28 June 1962 added to the District Council of Kapunda

District Council of Clare

• 21 July 1853
• 19 October 1854 District Council of Upper Wakefield separated
• 30 April 1868 part of the District Council of Stanley separated
• 3 September 1868 Corporate Town of Clare separated
• 12 May 1932 District Council of Clare absorbed the District Council of Stanley (after a portion added to the District Council of Saddleworth)
• 9 January 1969 absorbed the Corporate Town of Clare

Corporate Town of Clare

• 3 September 1868
• Severed from the District Council of Clare
• 9 January 1969 reabsorbed into the District Council of Clare

Our power's just gone out (sending this from tethered phone internet!) but I'll have a look and see if the 1986 Civic Record gives me any more details a bit later today. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very much obliged to you. Super helpful. Yes, I should be using the 86 civic record. By the way, if you were to dump those photos on to the cloud somewhere privately so as not to infringe on copyright, it would be most helpful, but totally understand if you don't want to. Donama (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few days and I'll see what I can do - I've got an unorganised morass of stuff in my Google Photos and I'll try and get it organised in some way that I can get it to you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a conflict of sources at Enfield - 1986 Civic Record says Roy Donald Amer was mayor from 1968 to 1982, but has Norton listed as mayor in 1986. Unfortunately I cut off the half a page with the current councillors' details because that was rarely useful for what I was looking for. Bit baffled at the discrepancy - although the "Those Who Served" document is pretty useless in my book because it doesn't distinguish between terms as councillor, alderman and mayor, but am stumped by the difference between the Civic Record and that Mayor's report. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this local history page gives dates for Amer's terms that match neither source, while this supports the Civic Record. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep @The Drover's Wife: I'm afraid I was overambitious there. Might have to revert it until we get to the bottom of it. Donama (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitamin B3—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D - Don't take it personally. You stepped on a land mine for this topic. There are a number of HIGHLY opinionated editors involved in nutrition topics. I went through edit-hell getting Vitamin C to Good Article status. Currently I am working on a what-goes-where problem in deciding what content should be in tocopherol versus vitamin E. My bias is the chemistry in the chemical name and the health content in the vitamin name. However, for niacin/vitamin B3, niacin is by far the more likely name for people to search on. Same situation for folate/vitamin B9. For that one, Vitamin B9 does not even get a Stub article, only a redirect to Folate. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. I'll sit back and watch a while. Vitamin articles should exist as separate articles or as major sections in the corresponding chemical articles because of the human/animal interest. By definition they're all essential for human survival. That is a somewhat different topic scope than merely the chemical/physical properties, how they are synthesised, etc. Donama (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've editing information in the Ugg boots article. There's no way these additions and removals are acceptable on Wikipedia without evidence (see WP:SOURCE). Note also that statements like "this will keep being deleted" are also unacceptable. Please be prepared to go slow on this as this article as been the target of extensive edit warring in the past. Start a topic about the Spencers on the Ugg boot talk page first and we'll see what sources we can come up with. You will find there are plenty of editors already familiar with the controversy about Ugg boot history. Present the sources and you will have sympathetic editors willing to help. Note also there are also a several users who clearly are unsympathetic to anything other than the idea that Ugg is a registered US trademark! At least one account was found to be paid by Deckers, so this article has a higher degree of scrutiny. Last thing... Be aware that persistently making edits which are reverted (even if they are technically incorrect) is also unacceptable on Wikipedia and can easily result in an editing block (see WP:3RR). Please discuss your changes on the talk page and gain consensus before making them again. Donama (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama.

We are trying to get the real truth out there about the origins of the ugg boot. We have researched business archives and interviewed many of the old surfers around in the 1960's. The trouble is a lot of these people have passed on including Charlie Spencer. Graeme was shown to be the most humble person in this situation just wanting his dad, the little man in the back shed pumping out uggs for the locals, to get the recognition he deserves. The people making the most noise about this have proven to be egotistical and narcissistic. These people are not computer literate and a big reason why big business has stamped out the truth. We don't mind if you have all these outrageous claims. Just leave the story about Charlie Spencer because many people know this to be the truth. Let people decide what they want to believe. We are just going by the first registration of the 'ugg' name in 1971 and the many people we have discussed this topic with. Can you please tell me how we can start a discussion page on this so we can capture the comments from the people who know the truth.

Kind Regards

SA Surfer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA surfer (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SA Surfer. I see your point. I had a quick look and found at least one reference to Charlie Spencer from a reputable source: "Sydney Ugg boot maker suing US footware giant". ABC. 27 August 2016.

To start a talk page discussion about something, go to the Ugg boot article and click 'Talk' at the top left. Then when you're on the talk page, click 'New section'.

Cheers Donama (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama

Thank you for your reply and thank you for your understanding. People deserve the truth. Will I be blocked if I keep trying to get the truth out there about the 'ugg boot' origins on Wikipedia?

Kind Regards

SA Surfer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA surfer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you will be blocked if you edit in a disruptive manner. Courtesy and working for consensus, especially on an article with a history like this one, will be much more likeley to result in information about the Spencer family connection being permanently in the article. It will take time and a lot of patience on your part, but it will be worth it! Donama (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But this is so wrong on a lot of levels. People deserve the truth. Can we leave the Charlie story for people to make their own decision? I will also leave all these other 2 paragraphs so people can decide for themselves.

1. No you can't. Wikipedia isn't for telling everyone the absolute truth. Or opinions for that matter. It's for telling everyone what is verifiably known - facts. That's because it's an encyclopaedia not a blog. Sources for any fact must be cited and must be reputable (that is, at least published). You didn't do that. This is called original research on Wikipedia and is not okay. See WP:NOR. If you can make the effort to read the links I'm sending you, you will learn to edit in such a way that is going to be acceptable to all the people watching the article and satisfy a casual reader that the information is legit.

2. You don't have to edit the article. You can just put the information you have on the talk page and see if someone else is willing to do the work to verify it and write it in an encyclopaedic way. Put a summary of all the verifiable sources about Charlie Spencer's role into the talk page section we created for you. See what response you get. Donama (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Donama. I will do that. Is there a way to create a link for this thread? Kind Regards SA Surfer

This is the link: User talk:SA surfer#Ugg boots Cheers Donama (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the link. I will be working hard to get everyone who knows the truth to post on this subject. It can be hard to motivate people to do this when they are in their twilight years but I am sure I can get a lot of people out there to speak up. Kind Regards SA surfer (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Ugg boots talk page thread for this is at Talk:Ugg boots#Recent edits to include information about Charlie Spencer. Donama (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama. I have been having trouble with Meters (a wikipedia representative) who is deleting coversations in the talk discussion page about Charlie Spencer and ugg boots. These comments were from 6 weeks ago and I was just giving an update and he deleted all of my updated information including information about our Chicago lawyers releasing the first ugg boot registration. He is sabotaging this and is extremely rude and does not give any real reason for deleting my conversations. All i can think of is he is targeting me. Can you help please. This talk discussion was supposed to be an open discussion. Nothing to do with him SA surfer (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SA surfer: Your comments haven't been deleted, just nested inside a box to show that you are an editor with a conflict of interest (you have declared it several times). There's nothing untoward going on. Please be aware of how a conflict of interest is viewed when editing an article like Ugg boots which has already been subject to intense edit warring by COI editors from the other side. See WP:COI. Donama (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been giving the latest information about meetings and discussions with important people involved in this. This is what the talk discussion was for. I am not putting it on the Article page. Why do you think no one has come to me with any law suits? Because they know they have been misleading everyone and they are a bit nervous. We have some of the best lawyers in Chicago on this. Another reason why they are worried. People need to know this. I won't mention names because that will all come out in good time and the article page will finally be able to give the true facts with references. I don't understand why he has deleted conversations on Charlies discussion page. I read the transcripts about Wiki etiquette and I don't believe I am breaking the rules. Just telling the many people out there that want to know the latest. You have been a big help for an old bloke like me but I do find Meters to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. How should I write the latest meetings I have had with people like Rodney Fox and John Arnold? SA surfer (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your meetings with people in real life are not something that needs to go on a Wikipedia article talk page. Meters already asked you to check WP:NOTAFORUM. That will make it clearer. If you want a page to write anything you want (as long as its not a copyright violation—WP:COPYVIO—or potential libel about a living person—see WP:BLP), then write it on your own user page. Right here. And edit to your heart's content. When you have encyclopaedic content ready to add to a Wikipedia article you can copy and paste as required. Donama (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama. I'm doing a little work on an article, can we add something about the interesting image File:Ghost_bat_medical_closeup.jpg? cygnis insignis 08:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: It was a routine medical I was lucky enough to witness at the Adelaide Zoo. What other information were you looking for noting that I have no zoological expertise whatsoever? Donama (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A captive at the zoo, not a wildlife park, unless you happened to get his name I probably have my answer. And thank you for confirming it is a checkup, not an rescue or field examination. You did good to recognise this is a valuable image and in making that available, an expert encyclopedist. The prospects for the species are not so good I read, cane toads! Cheers, cygnis insignis 04:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama. Are you sure about the spelling of Harold Cooper's middle name? The source you provided and others (including this: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/135807/20131016-0000/www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/collections/information-resources/archives/cooper-harold-more-aa-64.html) spell it "More". EighteenFiftyNine (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EighteenFiftyNine: Actually I'm not. It's just that Moore seemed more likely and I came to him from academia where he was Harold Moore. We ought to defer to those gov.au sources though I guess. Donama (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the Deaths registry index in South Australia for May 1970 and he's Harold More there too ("1970 88A/3539 COOPER, Harold More; Relative: R COOPER [N]") so my bad. I'll fix if you don't soon Donama (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! His birth registration is the other spelling! He must have changed his name?? ("1886 388/272 COOPER, Harold Moore; Father: Robert COOPER; Mother: Mary Antill OSBORNE; Adelaide"). Donama (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama,

I am writing about the above subject in respect to your recent edits on Davenport, the Corporate Town of Davenport and the Hundred of Davenport.

I have upgraded the above as well as the article about Davenport, South Australia to reflect the following:

• Davenport, South Australia   is a suburb created in 2014 in respect to an aboriginal community originally associated with a former mission children's home and school that started in 1937. Therefore, it cannot be a 'historic town' associated with either the Corporate Town of Davenport which ceased to exist in 1932 or the Hundred of Davenport which was created in 1860. In fact, it has its own history due to the association of its community with the Stolen Generation.  
• A detailed look at available sources for the Corporate Town of Davenport reveals that it was located in what is now the 'Suburb' of Port Augusta. The following newspaper report is quite clear in this respect - refer A NEW CORPORATION AT PORT AUGUSTA.   Also, this revelation is also supported by doing a comparison of the description of the Corporate Town extent in the Proclamation of 25 August 1887 with a map of the Hundred available on the State Library of SA website.

For your information, I do need to add some more citations to the article about the Hundred of Davenport.

Please reply on this talk page if you wish to make comment about the above.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I removed your autoblock, so you should be able to edit again. Sro23 (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages, where it states that the proper way to link from a disambiguation page to another disambiguation page is as follows:

:

* On a disambiguation page, an intentional link to another disambiguation page that does not contain "(disambiguation)" in the title:

• • Incorrect: [[Springfield]]
  • Incorrect: [[Springfield (disambiguation)|Springfield]]
  • Incorrect: [[Springfield|Springfield (disambiguation)]]
  • Correct: [[Springfield (disambiguation)]]

Please stop changing the links in the 'See also' section of Kai, as they were correctly formatted before you made any changes. Again, KAI is a disambiguation page, and the proper way to link to it from Kai is by linking KAI (disambiguation). - Donald Albury 01:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to sleep on this and revisit tomorrow. - Donald Albury 02:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at the talk page of [[3]] - might be something that a local might reach out perhaps... JarrahTree 05:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, @JarrahTree: I will monitor the user talk page and if they interact at all I'll join in. I think sometimes new users don't even know they have a talk page! Donama (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this could be the case indeed - thanks - see also my comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cowdy001#inneresting - cheers and thanks JarrahTree 06:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh well - the next stage whether comes back as something else or not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Heritage_South_Australia#September_2019 JarrahTree 07:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laterthanyouthink. You removed a category from a redirect. Can you point me to the policy on this please? Thanks Donama (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donama. I'm not aware of a specific policy - it just looked odd when I was looking at what the category held, that one being in italics. Please revert if I assumed incorrectly. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I might do that. It's just that the individual heritage items don't warrant their own individual articles (yet) so have to redirect to Islington Sewage Farm. The category should actually be placed on the title of the item in the heritage register though. Donama (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Meetup Next: 15 November 2024 Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk •

Meetup 22 has been hastily arranged for this evening, spread the word! Bahudhara (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Shoo-in has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Shoo-in until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Meetup Next: 15 November 2024 Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk •

You are cordially invited to this meetup to:

• discuss the WikiCon Australia 2024 event to be held in Adelaide on 23 November 2024, which involves the setting up of a GLAM collaboration between Wikimedia Australia and the South Australian Museum, and, possibly later, other local GLAM institutions
• discuss means of recruitment/mentoring/training of new editors, and the possibility of holding more regular meetups in Adelaide.

Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]