Talk:History of the City of Burnside

Headings and images sizes

Just an FYI: I modified the article headings to use lowercase lettering where appropriate and removed "the" and "A/an" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Also, I again removed the fixed sizing from the images. Generally it's best to leave pics in the text (other than infobox pics) without a specified width, because the thumbnail image can be resized based on the user preferences. Images default to 180px but people that want them larger or smaller can get it their way. Specifying a fixed width overrides this option. It isn't a prefect solution, but realistically there's no guaranteed way to format the images that'll look good on everyone's computer. --NormanEinstein 19:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

It looks to be extremely high quality as always. A few notes

• Is it NPOV and appropriate in a technical sense to put Kaurna people as "stone-age"
• In one of the sections, there is a link to Rostrevor, South Australia but it is labelled St Bernards -which is supposed to be correct?
• World Wars I and II sent many of the sons of Burnside to fight in aid of allies and also Like much of Australia, Burnside held true to the phrase "Lest We Forget" seem to not be as formal as is desirable in an encyclopedia, and the second may be a personal judgement?

Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the Kaurna, while it is an accurate description it may be seen as offensive to some; if further qualms are brought up I will see it changed appropriately (unless you suggest a replacement).
• St. Bernards is the old name for what is now Rostrevor. There is similar linking using old names to link to their modern ones throughout the article when a name change is not specifically mentioned in the text itself.
• "Held true to the phrase lest we forget" is in relation to the huge array of monuments (hence they are not forgetting). It seems appropriate.

Big thanks for having a look for me :D michael ^talk 07:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the lest we forget business, I think it might be possible to convey the same things without being quite so colloquial. Apart from that, though, it's a fantastic article. Ambi 10:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions as to what it should be changed to? michael ^talk 10:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Great article. I have made one pedantic redirection but besides that I couldn't find much wrong with it. --Roisterer 12:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I've gone through the article and made changes where I thought they were necessary. Please review these to ensure I have not affected the context in which the were written. I've also slapped a "citation needed" tags on a few statements. Moreover, the assertion that Norwood-Kensington was the first munipality in Australia is incorrect so far as I know - the City of Adelaide was the first local government authority established in Australasia in 1840. I didn't remove the claim as I think there might be some confusion with terminology. Although I was concerned at first that the article wasn't entirely Burnside-specific, I think the article is overall pretty comprehensive and well-written.--cj | talk 07:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations added. With regard to Norwood-Kensington, it lies in the detail. It is the first official municipality. Thanks for the copyedit cj. michael ^talk 07:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also:

In the line "Much of Burnside's history has been compiled and kept by two institutions that have remained an important part of resident life: the school and the Church" you asked "which church??". I'm referring to the Church as an institution and not as any particular one. Burnside residents were particularly devout.

You also asked "what is the relevance??" in relation to "Somewhat strangely, no learned activity developed in Burnside's centre near Tusmore where the present Council Chambers, Community Centre and Library are located." Tusmore was in the centre of the region (and as populated as any other at that point) and was devoid of the educational institutions that the other villages had the benefit of, a strange anomaly.

michael ^talk 08:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

On the first point: okay, but "Much of Burnside's history has been compiled and kept by two institutions" would seem to imply particular entities. I'll see if I can reword it. On the second point: this can again be clarified. Thanks, --cj | talk 08:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Programme/Program

There has been some discussion over whether the correct Australian English is "program" or "programme". Unfortunately, as Google seems to interpret "programme" and "program" interchangably, it's difficult to gauge how popular each is.

However, the Australian Government seems to prefer "programme" [1] [2] [3], as does the Queensland government [4], and local governments [5] [6].

Universities seem to like "programme" too. See QUT [7], UQ [8] [9], Monash [10] and JCU [11].

Given that there is no definitive list of "Australian English" words, but given the use of the non-US version by the government, and higher educational institutions, coupled with the fact that I was taught to use "programme" myself as the "Australian friendly" choice in school, and that I've never heard anyone ever mention that "program" is Australian English (except where it refers to "computer program"), I'm fairly confident in saying that "programme" is the correct au-en spelling of the word, when it is used in the context it is used in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 May 2006

"Programme" is indeed Australian English, but its use has been so diminished in recent years due to the styles used by such dominant players as News Limited and Microsoft, that a standard cannot be said to exist. Thus, it is not inconsistent with Wikipedia conventions for either to be used. However, as there is a conflict, the spelling used by the article's original author should be continued, whatever it may be. See WP:MOS. --cj | talk 05:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Burnside.gif

The image Image:Burnside.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Burnside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001001209/http://esvc001353.wic010u.server-web.com/features/glen_osmond_mines.html to http://esvc001353.wic010u.server-web.com/features/glen_osmond_mines.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Burnside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424063653/http://magillps.sa.edu.au/ to http://www.magillps.sa.edu.au/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524180314/http://www.coopers.com.au/pdfs/studentInfo.pdf to http://www.coopers.com.au/pdfs/studentInfo.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821170600/http://www.skp.com.au/memorials/pages/50052.htm to http://www.skp.com.au/memorials/pages/50052.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This Featured article is a 2006 promotion whose original writer left Wikipedia long ago. It has not been maintained to FA standards. It has uncited text, short choppy sentences, and someone (undated, unsigned) wrote at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page:

Choice of name explained only in Lead and not referenced. "only 29 months after the foundation of the colony." What colony? Can't understand why the history of Burnside begins with a very large paragraph outlining the early history of other places. Later it seems that the older villages become part of Burnside district, but some sort of clarity is needed. When did the Andersons arrive? (If we don't know, say so). District councils section lightly referenced and is one mega paragraph. "Burnside District Council" needs a wikilink. "modest" population is PEACOCK, as is "immense" growth (343 people is subjectively "immense") "the Boer War placed more emphasis on physical activity and merit within society" what's the link? "Ten per cent of the £60,000 budget consisted of commercial enterprise payments, while the rest was made up of ratepayer fees" A "budget" in my understanding, is about expenditure, but this seems to be income. Clumsily placed image of a memorial. "1965 saw an Olympic Grandstand" - what Olympics? "the Adelaide newspapers had a ball" is not encyclopedic language. "Premier Playford"=? Swimming centre wikilinked only in modernity section.

Unless someone is willing/able to bring this article back to FA standard, it should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

To make matters worse the main source is self-published by the city and so was another of the sources. Non-independent sources should not be used as the backbone of the article because of obvious COI issues. So, the article would basically have to be torn apart and rewritten based on independent sources. buidhe 23:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I also think that the title ought to be changed; "Burnside" can refer to many things. There's one in Chicago and another in Kentucky, and that's just in the U.S. I did some work on this article back in June and I don't think it meets the FAC for the reasons given above, as well as due to the prose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved; there is consensus that the present name is inadequate and that "History of the City of Burnside" is a better title. Any merger proposal can be made separately. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

History of Burnside → History of the City of Burnside – The current title is inadequate in preparing the reader for its contents and is not PRECISE. As I said earlier in the FAR thread, there are at least a couple of Burnsides in the United States alone, and many more elsewhere. That disambiguation page indicates that the City of Burnside is not the primary topic in places named "Burnside". "City of Burnside" is the widely-accepted name and is less ambiguous, so the page title should point there. There is also a Burnside, South Australia, nearby with which this can easily be confused. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

While I understand that this is a featured article (undergoing some reassessment above), it would also seem to fit without too much trouble in City of Burnside as it stands, so I don't see much reason not to merge this there. Dekimasuよ! 16:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe in that case an FAR is needed, either for process or just in general. (EDIT: Well, actually it would need a proposed merge on the talk page of City of Burnside, with a procedural FAR to go along with it.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Support move. Strong oppose to any merge. This is way too long an article to be merged. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Combining them would still yield under 50kb of readable prose. Dekimasuよ! 10:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• First choice: merge; second choice: move. As I stated above, much of this article has to be torn out because it's based on non-independent sources some of which have peacock issues. Once that's done, this makes much more sense as a section than a standalone article. buidhe 17:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also strongly object to any "tearing out" of this article based on the current sourcing. It is a history of a local area. These subjects don't exactly attract Hachette or HarperCollins, and a completely common way of local history being recorded is the respective government paying some historian to write a book about the subject. This is very different to "non-independent" sourcing in any pejorative sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Casliber and SandyGeorgia: What say you about a possible merger, especially as this concerns a (probably review-worthy) FA? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• The individual pages have 16kb and 19kb of prose. That yields significantly under 50kb of prose in total. I can see John M Wolfson's issues with the name. Most of the facts should be straightforward enough that primary sources are not an issue, but I do concede that the prose is puffy in places. I would support merging over moving, and both over the article remaining at the current title. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• We can't just "merge away" featured content; a Featured article review would be needed to make this decision. Meanwhile, I am not opposed to the new proposed name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.