User talk:Donama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please feel welcome to post a message here. I will respond on your page. —Donama

Reply to wikipedia email[edit]

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)

Mid North local help request[edit]

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)

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)
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)


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)

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)
@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)
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)

Hundreds and Counties[edit]

>> 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)
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)
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)
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)

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

Point Boston[edit]

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)

Sorry, my oversight. If it still needs fixing I'll fix it. Donama (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
All good - already got to it! The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Murray Bridge[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

Highercombe council[edit]

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)

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)

Next meetup[edit]

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)

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

Murray Bridge LGAs[edit]

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)

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)
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)

More about counties and hundreds[edit]

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)

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)


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)

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia Revival[edit]

Information icon 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)

Senator gichuhi[edit]

Ref your edit comment (Undid revision 776114500 by ScottDavis (talk) - removed because is senator-elect not senator - see 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)