User talk:ScottDavis/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

and enthusiastically used up in western australia

Parkhurst_apprentices is inadequately developed as an article, but it has been argued they were the precursor as to why west oz took up convicts a bit later... JarrahTree 00:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: That is consistent with what I have read. At the moment, I am seeking to find out enough of George Hall (British administrator) to demonstrate that he is notable enough for an article once I confirmed that he had been mistakenly conflated with George Hall (Australian politician) as they were both involved in early SA government. It seems that George was an early advocate of rehabilitation for young offenders instead of teaching them to be better criminals. SA used the New Zealand experience to reject any Parkhurst boys being sent here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Gill's work on the WA enthusiasm suggests that their utility was vital for cheap labour, and which created the atmosphere ready for convicts JarrahTree 00:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds and Counties

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) 01:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Donama: 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? --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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 01:47, 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

South Australian geography

I really don't know how you manage to do such a good job making sense of all the articles on South Australian geography: so many of these government sources are hopeless and the locality system all over the place compared to other states, so it is one of the most maddening experiences I've ever had trying to track things down, and I'd have given up hours ago if I wasn't bored. In trying to map out these heritage sites, I have a now-actually sourceable and notable site that the heritage register very helpfully lists as "Stables, Shed and Yards" and the address as "Near Wirrigenda Hill KIMBA", when it has an actual name and street and is not actually in Kimba, helped along by a government report that gave me the correct street which...is not actually in the stated locality. And I've had a few of these! Every time I go digging I find enough material that I could write an interesting article if I dug further, but the vagueness of state government resources often leave me spending half an hour trying to work out where the damned place actually is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Thank you. I guess I get my head round the geography articles in a similar way to how you do the politics and government ones. Interest and focus :-) There are still at least half a dozen places across the state that my ancestors or distant cousins have lived that don't have articles yet, so I will likely write those at some stage, and learn a bit of my heritage in the process. We actually found St Johns by accident one day just by trying to avoid the main highway to travel between a couple of cemeteries that have some of my ancestors in them. Trove newspaper archive is a great resource for getting side-tracked into any rabbit hole of interest, but sometimes it just provides more challenging questions. Thanks for all the work you do on heritage, government and politics too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, where did you get the text information from the Property Location Browser that you just added to Sheringa? I finally taught myself how to use the map bit of that in a way that isn't completely useless, but I can't find how to get it to give me that information. Thanks so much for fleshing out Sheringa anyway - I'm going to be doing another eight Eyre Peninsula localities that have heritage sites but no town article in the next couple of days so it's nice to see some of them getting fleshed out a little. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: I'm happy to help with the location articles if you would like, but I might not get to them until later in the week. Anyway, quick guide to the PLB:

1) Use the Layers button to turn on the layers:

• Suburbs and Localities
• Place names (gazetteer)
• Government Towns

2) pan/zoom or search for the area you are interested in

When zoomed in enough, you will see black dots with names for the gazetteer entries

3) Use the Info button to select one of the black dots

4) Close the Land Parcels panel and open the Place Names (Gazetteer) panel below it (if there isn't one, you didn't click close enough to the dot and need to try again)

5) Click on "Place Names Report: Link" which opens yet another little window

6) Click Print on this window, and a new window will open with the info you wanted two screens ago

7) Always include the ID in the citation, as hopefully at some stage in future, there will be an easier way to get to this info and we can upgrade the citations semiautomatically.

The ID actually cross-links to the Geoscience Australia gazetteer too, but their page doesn't have the Other Details which is usually the most interesting part of the SA gazetteer entry. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Oh man, does that make life easier: it may not be self-intuitive but it is definitely helpful. I just realised one of the articles I created last night was on the wrong damn town and it was in fact in the next one over because the other government sources were so vague. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

One thing I've discovered as a result of where this led: I think we might have a problem with our locality lists in our LGA articles. I've been chasing down things in the Streaky Bay area, and the locality list on our district page appears to have been quite wrong. I tried to work out why we had a few places that the Property Location Browser and Location Viewer both found no trace of, and to which Google seemed to turn up only vague traces that there might be an ungazetted estate or subdivision by that name, and it traced back to the LGASA website, which was also wrong. So, if that wasn't a one-off to Streaky Bay, we might have a situation where the actual government sites turn up a bunch of localities that we're missing and demonstrate that a bunch that we have don't actually exist! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Same goes with Ceduna, so it isn't just the one LGA, and that if anything was worse. It seems to affect quite a few - I noticed some of these were added in 2010 and was wondering if they might have been thrown out by the more recent locality creations, but the LGASA site hasn't changed if that's the case - either way, we probably want to stop using it as a source and a bunch of our articles are incorrect. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: The LGA websites tend to be a bit arbitrary in what they include. Some aren't too bad, but some seem to list all sorts of local names, former names and current names mixed in. Donama, Cowdy001, me, and perhaps a few others are gradually finding and fixing the inconsistencies. The plan seems to be that LOCB bounded localities will get Wikipedia articles, and LOCU and former names will generally be redirects, and covered in the current place article. See for example Neukirch, South Australia. I believe the entire state is now covered by LOCBs that don't overlap, to support the emergency service addressing project. There are some that get a bit confusing, because the historic names and current names don't exactly match up when they were originally squatter's runs, then formal pastoral leases of crown land, then farms or town subdivisions or both, and a railway siding was named after the nearest settled place at the time the railway was built, and "closer settlement" followed the rails and created more places in the next few years. Anama, South Australia was an example of that, as it was owned by the same family as Bungaree Station, and the boundaries moved over time as fortunes waxed and waned. LOCBs, Hundreds, LGAs and wine regions have gazetted precise boundaries. LOCUs and sheep/cattle stations are vague. "Government Towns" are precise, but superseded by LOCBs. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Wudinna had a couple that were LOCUs, but Ceduna and Streaky Bay had a bunch that just weren't in the system period - for Ceduna some of them did seem to be former names. I'd already noticed the issue with cattle station boundaries being a bit of a headache. Thanks for the explanation - I'll add this to my list of things to do as I work through this part of the state. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! I'm totally fine working these out now that you've taught me how to use the two government mapping sites, but some of the naming logic really is counter-intuitive!

So, sitting in my browser right now are redlink pages for: Boston, South Australia, Kiana, South Australia, Mount Dutton Bay, South Australia, Yarrah, South Australia, Kanyaka, South Australia, Whites Flat, South Australia, Sleaford, South Australia, Wilcowie, South Australia, Cocata, South Australia and Cunyarie, South Australia. By my estimations, that would give us localities for every heritage site in an LGA in SA north or west of Port Augusta. I'm going to have to go back and check them in case of any further Woolshed Flat-like naming incidents but hopefully that should sort it.

I just want to check and source the localities and councillors for Mount Remarkable, Orroroo Carrieton and Peterborough first tonight and then I'll get on those, but any help would be much appreciated! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: OK. I'll take Cunyarie, South Australia because I don't think I've heard of it (and haven't looked yet). Otherwise, I seem to be picking places with a church (or former church) out in the middle of a paddock somewhere that some of my ancestors (or my wife's) or their siblings worshipped at - they're all over the place! The ones I know of that don't have articles yet include Neales Flat, St Kitts, Bundey, Australia Plains, Scott Creek, Dowlingville, Geranium Plains, Rosedale. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh thanks for that! There's two at Cunyarie, one wildly misplaced by the online heritage register (but thankfully - albeit a bit late for the hour or so it took me to find the place initially, not in Map Viewer). Never heard of any on your list, but I guess that's not surprising - strangely enough for my fascination with writing articles on it, it's the one state none of my extended family wound up in! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Where are you from? I was thinking you are somewhere north of me, further than I think Donama is. My family has pretty much all been in SA for at least 4 generations (some branches 6 or 7), except for a brief sojourn to a mine in NSW 3-4 gen ago, and my parents and sibling moved to Vic 25 years ago. I'm a mix of British and European ("German") heritage. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Victoria, via Canberra, wound up in Western Australia. I feel like there's a lot of interesting people there, but alas not notable ones, and not from anywhere that doesn't have an article anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Now I know why you work so much later at night than I do! I'm going to call it quits, but you have an article to build on. It turns out I should have heard of it, since I wrote Pinkawillinie next door. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help yesterday. I have mastered the Map Viewer now but the Property Location Browser continues to drive me up the wall, even if I get there eventually, and South Australia does love its weird results. I'm trying to get the place name data for a school that's gazetted in the system, but the location pinpointer has stuck it right in the middle of a road, and the system is spitting back "this is the middle of the road it is not a block of land" and I want to throw things. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Creation of page

I recently contacted an admin at User talk:Jon513. I have just noticed that the admin contacted does not regularly edit and therefore your response (as you are an admin, who also recently deleted a page) would be appreciated. Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Leeds United FC fan: I am not familiar with the notability guidelines for Rugby League. I suggest that you either create the article, with citations to demonstrate its notability, or you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league for a discussion with other Rugby editors. Sorry I am unable to be of more assistance. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: The Elite One Championship is a competition, though I can't find specific rugby league guidelines for competition seasons nor can I find general guidelines for competition seasons. I will ask WikiProject Rugby league, though do you think it would be possible to contact a user who is knowledgeable about notability guidelines? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Leeds United FC fan: You will find the people you need there. There's already a similar discussion I think. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

George Pell

@ScottDavis: I would very much appreciate it if you were to able to add your opinion to the section of the talk page entitled "considerable responsibility". Common sense seems to be taking a back seat. Thanks in advance. All the best to you! Boscaswell talk 07:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

South Australian things

Hi, I love SA as well because I live here too I keep adding to Foodland and actually merged Drake supermarkets into Foodland I like what you do on pages any way bye. DcD2510— Preceding unsigned comment added by DcD2510 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a copyedit across the article to help it follow the Wikipedia manual of style etc. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if there's any chance you might be able to help with a little research problem I'm having on the LGAs, because I cannot for the life of me find the answer and you're usually the most knowledgeable Wikipedian around these things. I've had no trouble tracking the predecessors of all the LGAs west/north of Port Pirie, but I'm coming up empty in tracing the District Council of Crystal Brook-Redhill - the two councils merged at some point before merging again into Port Pirie Regional Council in 1997, but I can't find any trace of when that might have happened. I don't suppose there's any chance you might have some clue of where to track that down? The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall have a look to see what I can find over the next few days. Scott Davis ^Talk 12:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have found quite a bit about the District Council of Crystal Brook up to 1936, but very little for the District Council of Redhill. I suspect you have already found that reference. Nothing found yet about the merger, although I noticed that the District Council of Pirie was split from Crystal Brook. I've started the DC of CB article as I was reading that ref, and will try harder in the next few days to actually answer the question. It's about bedtime now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: It looks likely that the DC of CB survived at least as far as 1973.1985. but not as late as 2000 by which time the DC of CB-R had been both created and merged into PPRC.

Thanks again for helping with this (and for the Crystal Brook article). I'm not too worried about the earlier incarnations or the DC of Pirie - Susan Marsden's paper is a phenomenal reference and between that, the Civic Record (as you've noticed), and Trove, for the early, or the longer-term councils, it's usually not too hard to put together an article as long as I can find an end date. It's just this one merger of Crystal Brook and Redhill that has me really stumped.

There is a federal government press release from 1986 that mentions Redhill alone, and a not-online report into a 1987 proposal from Crystal Brook and Redhill to merge with Georgetown that didn't happen. So it must have happened after 1987, and I suspect probably fairly soon after that report, but random council amalgamations usually come up in state cabinet document lists, except the online archive goes back to 1988 and I've combed every year with no luck. I am thinking it might have gone through in late 1987 after (presumably) Georgetown said no to the initial merger proposal, but I have absolutely no proof of that, so hopefully you have some better luck! The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Some problems regarding South Australian places that require attention

Hi ScottDavis, I have two matters that I do not know how to fix and would be very pleased if you could fix. Firstly, should not Bagot Well and Bagot Well, South Australia be merged as they are the same place? Secondly, I noticed that the talk page for Pelican Point, South Australia is the same as that for Pelican Point, Adelaide. Please reply on this page. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hope no one minds that I butted in, but since I'm awake I redirected Bagot Well, South Australia to Bagot Well as the former had basically no content and they're the same place. I fixed the Pelican Point issue by creating a new talk page for the town - the article was originally a redirect to the Adelaide point, Scott had broken out an article on the (different) town but just hadn't gotten to doing the talk page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone. The Drover's Wife - thanks for the fixes. Some clarifications and comments. I asked ScottDavis for help as he appears to be the only local administrator, as I have pointed out similar issues out to him in the past and not because he has any specific connection to the above articles. With respect to Bagot Well, I would be have expected to the redirect to go from "Bagot Well" to "Bagot Well, South Australia" as I understand the latter is the preferred naming for an article for a place in SA. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the conclusion is that you two have sorted things out between you? I have spent most of my weekend away from computers out in the "real world", not even thinking about new Wikipedia articles or photos, nor finding the places my ancestors frequented. Kyle1278 (talk · contribs) created a lot of very short articles about SA places a long time ago, and many of them were deleted a few weeks later with a comment of "G6: Incorrectly created". If I have noticed these articles on places I am about to make an article anyway, I have tended to undelete them, to give Kyle the credit for his work, even if it nearly all gets changed once the locator changes to an infobox and the census info is updated. It looks like I undeleted Bagot Well, South Australia, but didn't go back to edit it (I think I found several along that railway line and undeleted them all at once instead of one at a time).

Naming of Australian place articles was one of the things that led to me taking a couple of years off of Wikipedia and while I was away, the standard for town names qualified by state was watered down as "unnecessary pre-disambiguation" and a couple of editors went on a spree of moving articles to shorter titles because they could not imagine any potential name conflict such as Bagot Well railway station, Bagot Well Congregational church or some other well named after somebody Bagot. I prefer the longer form of the name too, and am happy to move it with consensus of relevant authors (i.e. you). Re talk:Pelican Point, South Australia - I had not even thought about it - thanks! --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I am of the same mindset about naming of place articles, for what it's worth - just decided to stop fighting that one. I redirected it to Bagot Well because it was the one with the real article, but more than happy for you to move over the redirect if you can. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Article moved to Bagot Well, South Australia - one of the advantages of the admin bit. I've had a great weekend of cycling, gardening and a spot of wine tasting in the McLaren Vale wine region. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Apoinga

Thank you for the kind message - and for the very useful expansion. Glad to know they're of interest. I'm finding the ones out Burra way a bit challenging because the modern localities don't easily line up with old uses, and it's very difficult for me to tell from say Trove whether a reference to "Apoinga" is talking about the hundred or about the much smaller but apparently never formally surveyed village that formed around the hotel and smelting works. Interesting nonetheless! The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Complete conversation at User talk:The Drover's Wife#Fun coincidence --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Scott

Thank you for your recent feedback regarding my page updates. I really appreciate your input and will try to edit within the guidelines in future.

Many thanks again, AjnaCondor (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you , and welcome to Wikipedia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CountryMinded logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CountryMinded logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Logo has been superseded, so I have deleted this version immediately. Thanks for alerting me. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Help with Cartoonist page photo captions listed twice

On this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoonist

The information about the cartoonist in the top right photo, Jack Elrod, is listed twice, which is this under his photo: Cartoonist Jack Elrod at work on a Sunday page of the Mark Trail comic strip

It is listed once below the photo and once again the same caption "Cartoonist Jack Elrod at work on a Sunday page of the Mark Trail comic strip" below the title "Comics" where you see a number of white dialogue balloon icons. Can you fix this so the information about the photo isn't listed under the dialogue balloons as well? I can't seem to fix it. Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed by modifying {{Comics navbar}} to deliberately set a caption for the second image instead of passing through the same value for caption and topcaption. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Page Trolls

Hi Scott

There are two users ("The Drovers Wife" and "Benvenuto") who keep editing Health Australia Party's wikipedia page with inaccurate information. What can be done about these trolling the page with false edits?

Many thanks, Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by AjnaCondor (talk • contribs) 08:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:AjnaCondor#May 2016. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Trolls editing page

Hi Scott

Thank you so much for your response. Neither users "Benvenuto" or "The Drover's Wife" are involved with the Health Australia Party. They are involved with the Australian Skeptics which have been attempting a targeted approach to defame the party with spurious claims. I am directly involved with the party and have been monitoring our page for these attacks. In future, when they occur can I revert edit them or draw your attention to them first - it's arduous to have to deal with these moron trolls!

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AjnaCondor (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

cannonball run site

Hello Scott,

I have never edited anything before on Wikipedia and I see you have been doing this officially for well over 11 years, and unofficially even longer.

I edited my first thing the other night on the Stuart Highway regarding the speed limit held after the accident during the cannonballrun. I also referenced a website with more information but I see that it was removed. www.cannonballrun.info. Could you please let me know how I should have done this for any future editing I do? I thought as long as the site was an information site that doesn't sell anything this would be allowed.

I realise it is not in your job description to teach new people what to do, however I thought you might be able to help me out on this one.

Should I reference the site at the bottom of the page maybe?

Thanks for your time.

Russ. inspired@payitforwardmovement.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatRussGuy (talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @ThatRussGuy: The main issue with www.cannonballrun.info is that as far as I can tell, it is a self-published fan site, not independently reviewed. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines including WP:FANSITE and WP:SELFPUBLISHED that in general prohibit using other sites that "anyone can edit" as sources for Wikipedia (which has the same status). The most obvious example is that you can't cite a mirror of Wikipedia as a source to put something on Wikipedia, but these rules also mean you can't use things like IMDB as a source for articles about movies - you need to use the same sources that the IMDB author used. In this case, Wikipedia needs to cite the same sources that cannonballrun.info used to reference the speed limit. It's OK to reference historic print material, such as the event program or the official notice to participants, or newspaper articles of the time. Provide as much info as you can about the source you used to make it easier for other people to verify the information. I am happy to help format the reference if you can add the info and haven't worked out how to use the citation templates yet. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Preferences

Scott can you please advise who the Lambie party will give their preferences please.

Thank you

Vikki Rogers 101.181.61.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@101.181.61.108: Hi Vikki. There are no group voting tickets under the new senate rules, so you get to allocate your preferences above the line, by filling in at least the numbers 1-6. Antony Green has been collecting how-to-vote cards at http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/snsw/htv/ (use the tabs at the top to choose your state). I hope this helps. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Louise Pratt

Hi there.

Re references to Louise Pratt's relationship with her former partner Aram Hosie (aka - me!) - you won't find a 'reference' for our relationship ending as we sought not to make it a media story. It's important however to reflect our relationship being past tense - both for accuracy purposes and because she is now in a new relationship, and so it's respectful not to misrepresent her situation. I've made a small edit to hopefully both reflect that the relationship did exist and now is changed - would be great if you could not substantially alter that edit.

Cheers. Aram

Perissology (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Perissology: I am sorry to hear that your relationship has failed :-( I'd start by putting the years that you were her partner in brackets in the infobox, for example |partner=Aram Hosie (2002–2016) (I don't know if I picked the right years or I would have already done this). I won't revert if you put the correct years in the infobox and change "has" to "had" at the beginning of the paragraph, thank you for discussing it first. I tried to find a reference to her being single or having a new partner, but didn't really know where to look, so added the information I found from published sources, and hope I adequately cited public sources that I didn't cause too much issue for you, Louise or your son, as I have no way of telling if User:Perrisology is indeed Aram Hosie, or if that user is someone trying to make trouble. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I'll make those changes as suggested. Only way I can think of you to verify independently of me would be to contact Louise - you could try messaging her on her Facebook account or via Twitter. A few journalists around WA are aware of the changed circumstances also, but they might be harder for you to contact! And I appreciate you trying to proceed with caution on this and being wary of potential troublemakers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perissology (talk • contribs) 05:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Australian Mental Health Party logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Australian Mental Health Party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Murray Mouth

Hi Scott - I've noticed you've reverted some edits I made on the above. What I was doing was compiling some scattered information about the course of the Murray that seemed relevant to the mouth from different articles, and then noting them for citation to see if I could attract one from the original poster. If the murray did indeed empty at both Port Pirie and Portland, they would indeed be interesting facts to include. Can you advise on the best way to achieve this if not in the manner that I had planned?

Thanks Jamesbushell.au (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jamesbushell.au: I also wikilinked Lake Bungunnia which is currently a redirect to a section of Murray River. I think that prehistoric alternate courses of the stream now known as the Murray River prior to the uplifts of the Cadell Block and the Pinnaroo Block probably better fit in the Murray River article than the Murray Mouth article. The numbers I deleted from the uncited paragraph of the Murray Mouth article were different than the numbers and lake extents in the Murray River article, but that was cited to a book I don't have access to and a tourism website. It's possible that the section could expand and be split out to a separate Prehistory of the Murray Darling Basin article in time, since Lake Bungunnia supposedly disappeared ten times as long ago as Aboriginal Australians arrived. My shortened form was deliberately vague so it did not contradict either the uncited version it replaced or the section in the Murray River article which had different extents for the prehistoric lake. I'm not convinced the timeline in the Murray River article actually works either (Burra Creek, then Lake Bungunnia, then the current mouth, but no mention of Portland either).

It's best to keep doubtful info all in one article, and that seems to be Murray River for this material, and refers to the Murray Mouth article for more details about the current mouth. There is potentially interesting geologic history about the mouth that is not currently in either Coorong or Murray Mouth too, as I have heard that it moves back-and-forth between Younghusband Peninsula and Sir Richard Peninsula and also that there are parallel "coorongs" inland and seaward from the current one.

If you disagree with my reasoning, it's probably best that we continue the discussion on one of the article's talk page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks with your help in editting Darlington SA

Hi Scott,

I want to add this in the Darlington SA page. "Darlington is a market town in County Durham, in North East England."

I would also like to have the word Darlington hightlighted and linked to Darlington in North East England Link to Darlington is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlington

Thanks,

Grant — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantLewis1955 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@GrantLewis1955: How's this? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirects vs redlinks

Hi Scott, thanks for your help at the Orange Sky draft. Regarding the red links on Patchett and Marchesi's names, Kerry kindly explained to me recently how redirects work here. I am wondering if doing that from List of Young Australian of the Year Award recipients ie creating their 2 pages that, for now, redirect to OSL would be a good idea? (And then I guess removing the wikilinks on their names on the OSL article?). JennyOz (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@JennyOz: Redirects and removing the wikilinks in the Orange Sky Laundry article would be "right" if they are only notable through connection to Orange Sky Laundry and unlikely to have significant personal reporting otherwise. That allows that article to develop and include the small amount required about the founders. If they later develop something else or leave OSL, the redirects can then be replaced by individual articles. I am not familiar enough with them to know if separate articles are appropriate at this stage. If you or anyone else want to write separate articles, they might initially rely on much the same references, but each article would have a different focus, picking up details about the people that might not be significant to the organisation they founded. If the redirects are created for now, then make their names bold in the lead paragraph of the target article. Thanks for starting the article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know about the bolding so I now understand all the steps to take. I think they are only notable via their OSL for now, so will do as you suggest. Thanks again. JennyOz (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NT Indigenous Music Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Break The Silence. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

SSCA

Surely, the fact that the criticism is reported in the media, makes it notable. I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall foul of undue weight, so why remove it? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia#Alan Jones, Tim Wilson, Jeff Kennett, Cate McGregor and the SSC. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greyhound racing in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4 Corners. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Parents and spouse

I am notifying people that responded at Template talk:Infobox person that it is now a formal !vote on whether to include or exclude parents and spouses in infoboxes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

SA state redistribution

Nice submission of yours... unlike 95% of others it actually makes relevant points :) Timeshift (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't noticed that the submissions have been published (I have been very sick in the last week). I shall read some others now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It would seem Rachel Sanderson has managed to get half of Walkerville to submit objections to the boundary changes... seven pages worth. It's very amusing to see what reasons they provide, apart from Sanderson's boilerplate content. I've never seen so many submissions before, it is almost as though Sanderson has spearheaded abuse of the submission process. Timeshift (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, ScottDavis. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, sorry about that. I am new in the game here :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susy1215 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Dashes and hyphens

I just noticed your edit summary at the article on Australia.

Hyphen: -

En dash: –

Tony (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tony1. The point was that they should be slashes, I did not actually think about how long the line I replaced had been. dd-mm-yyyy, dd–mm–yyyy and dd—mm—yyyy are all discouraged because they can be mistaken for the yyyy–mm–dd ISO standard. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Scott, your point was clear, and requires no explanation here. But referring to hyphens as dashes encourages confusion among editors. Tony (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Synod of South Australia

I happened to see your message to TDW so had a look. I think it's OK to move it into mainspace (it's better than plenty of articles already there). However, there are a couple of comments I would make about it. Firstly, I think the title doesn't convey much to the reader. Maybe "Uniting Church Synod of South Australia" or just "Uniting Church South Australia" would be a more meaningful title. Secondly, it needs an early introduction to what the synod does. I'd be inclined to put some of that right at the start of the article. Maybe

[Article title] is responsible for managing the South Australian property assets of the Uniting Church of Australia. It is formally known as [official name].

When you talk about the presbyteries and mission networks, there are lists but not a lot about what a presbytery is/does and what a mission network is/does. Do they evangelise? Do charitable work? Kerry (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Kerry Raymond:. I have the problem that I "know" these things, so it's hard to see what someone else needs to know sometimes. I chose the relatively short article title as that is in keeping with "Diocese of ..." which seems to be the default title for both Anglican and Roman Catholic Diocese articles unless there is a clash. It will then be relatively easy to make articles with the correct names for the other five Synods of the UCA too. I will either learn more about them, or their articles will be shorter to start with. I'll move it now, then try to expand in the right directions tonight or later in the week. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A lot of those "Diocese of ..." articles tend to end up as disambiguation pages as there often is a clash. I tend to favour being explicit on the denomination in the first place. And remember 22% of Australians professed "no religion" in the 2011 census, so even the most basic religious concepts may not be obvious.Kerry (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I started from Diocese of Willochra, which isn't a clash. Perhaps I'd have made a different choice if I started with Diocese of Adelaide. Mind you, Province of South Australia is quite different to Colony of South Australia too, and doesn't show a denomination. For now, I'd like to try to stick to the basic name and see how we go. Five of these seem to be "Synod of ..." with Northern Synod being an odd one out for naming. Is Synod of Queensland likely to have a name clash with the Lutherans?

I'm also a bit weak on the responsibilities of Synod vs Presbytery as they are one and the same in SA now so will take some learning as I/we write other synod articles. I have not cited the Basis of Union or other church documents yet as they might not be considered "independent of the subject". I don't intend to try to write separate presbytery articles, but would probably support someone who wanted to try once the synod articles make sense. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, my philosophy is "when in doubt, just do what you can as best you can and move on". It's not as if anything is cast in stone on Wikipedia. You or others can come back if they think there's something better that can be done. As someone who creates a lot of new articles, I know that plenty of people will engage with an existing article, whereas many people never start a new article. Kerry (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Cowra co-ords

Hi Scott, I was just looking at the Cowra article. I'm not au fait with using coordinates yet but its position so far out in west of NSW looks wrong to me. Can you please check? JennyOz (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @JennyOz: It appears that an IP edited the page twice on 29 Oct and changed a few numbers but the edits weren't reverted immediately (and I was the next editor two hours later fixing other vandalism but didn't notice this lot). I have reversed those two edits manually as the system couldn't undo them any more. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Scott. It is linked from a page I'm about to work on so will now make more sense. I'll try to read up on coords for next time I come across a place out of place:) JennyOz (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

They aren't hard if you know a suitable source, but in this case, I figured they were wrong, and worked from history to find it used to be right, and did a binary search to find the offending edit. The fact that I fixed other vandalism on the page only 2 hours later makes me feel a little sheepish for not noticing it at the time.--Scott Davis ^Talk 14:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi ScottDavis.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)