Forum:Divisions of Australian states

Forums: Index > Watercooler > Divisions of Australian states

(Initial paragraphs adapted from another forum)

Counties or some more recent division?

Counties appear in many old records but have virtually disappeared from real life. Is there a better division to base a standard navbox on? Local Government Areas of Australia?

Robin Patterson 06:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No reason why we couldn't have pages for old and new divisions. Robin Patterson 09:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like counties for Australia, I don't think they ever had any administrative or social significance, except in land tenure (though I could be corrected here), certainly nothing like the role they seem to have in the USA. The smallest divisions of a state like New South Wales that I think could be useful are the regional ones, like "New England", "Northern Rivers", "Monaro" etc. Even then, looking at the genealogies I have, the main division is between "Sydney" and "Regional" (ie not Sydney). I am loath to bother with categories below the state level in Australia. Thurstan 09:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

States

New South Wales

OK, maybe Brian Yap's relatives whose pages mention counties were a bit exceptional; I've not examined more than a few dozen of his thousands, and I've seen very few old Australian documents. In the absence of coherent cover of NSW regions in Wikipedia, please study and evaluate the fourteen regions defined by the Open Directory Project. The 13 non-Sydney regions would have an average population about double that of the average U.S. county, which puts them well inside the same order of magnitude. (Using Local Government Areas of Sydney would give a similar average population there.) I've copied the ODP map but I'm not much of an image manipulator. Commons has some useful maps but apparently not full coverage. Robin Patterson 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the ODP names sound like the sort of names I would use to answer the question "where did your ancestors live?".

203.129.53.92 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (sorry, it's me Thurstan)

Well, tentatively, here they are for creating initial pages (with the numbers being the current numbers of website profiles listed):

• Central Coast (New South Wales) (33)
• Central West (New South Wales) (2)
• Far West (New South Wales) (1)
• Greater Sydney (New South Wales) (531) - population about 5 million needs subdividing itself
• Hunter Valley (New South Wales) (62)
• Illawarra (New South Wales) (23)
• Murray (New South Wales) (0)
• North Coast (New South Wales) (13)
• North West (New South Wales) (10)
• Northern Rivers (New South Wales) (32)
• Orana (New South Wales) (2)
• Riverina (New South Wales) (6)
• South Coast (New South Wales) (22)
• Southern Tablelands (New South Wales) (4)

Does that format look OK? Should we abbreviate to NSW? Robin Patterson 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"NSW"

You may notice that I tend to compromise on the abbreviations, so "Southern Tablelands (New South Wales)" is okay by me, but when you include it in something longer, which is a subcategory, I would go for the abbreviation, so "Resided in Southern Tablelands (NSW)". This is really just pragmatic, so the names don't get too long (see how I treat NSW place names in some of my people pages). If consistency is preferred, I don't mind, and abbreviations throughout would be okay too. Thurstan 12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed your compromises. Wikipedia has them too - a category you created looked as if it was a bit out of line, but it matched WP exactly (helping to form my impression, mentioned above, of current WP incoherence in this field). Consistency has its good points (especially as we move towards more use of bots etc). In this situation some consistency is virtually forced because of how the navbox template creates links, using the division name at the top of the table (BASEPAGENAME). I'm happy with "NSW" generally, and it redirects to the state name on Wikipedia (which it could do here too); there would be small disadvantages in creating higher-level categories; but probably no more than a few dozen or hundred pages and only a few seconds' delay on each.

Parentheses in place names

I detect a possible problem with info pages. Why isn't Harold Holt's widow showing in Category:Born in Victoria (Australia) where her page (at my direction) says she is? The parenthetical part seems to be ignored. May affect quite a lot of our naming. Robin Patterson 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is: it works properly on my local copy!

Thurstan 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Category:Born in Victoria (Australia)

"From Genealogy

"This category currently contains no pages or media. "

Robin Patterson 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean "I see no problem", I meant "I don't know why the category is empty, it isn't empty on my local copy".

Perhaps we just have to wait and see: one of the reasons that I have a local copy is that the "live" version is neither coherent and consistant. For example, if I were to create a page for myself, with categories Category:Married in Queensland and Category:Born in 1951, and these categories didn't already exists, then I would find when I created them that they would come up empty. We seem to have to wait some time (hours?) for the various caches and various copies of the database to synchonize across the servers. When I started contributing, I several times found myself creating exactly the same page twice, because it didn't seem to exist when I came back to it.

Thurstan 03:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)