Talk:Pinkawillinie, South Australia

Australia: South Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Pinkawillinie, South Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Hundred and bounded locality

Is it possible for this to explain the relationship between the hundred and the gazetted locality a bit better than it does at present? I'm fine with focusing the article on the hundred instead, but it's (the naming system, not our approach) such a confusing system that it could really do with a bit of explaining on our part and I'm failing at coming up with the right words. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that this should be moved to bounded locality article - Pinkawillinie, South Australia - unless there's a reason to use the hundred boundaries to describe something specific. It's just as easy to use the LOCB to demonstrate where the park, old settlement and proposed radioactive waste dump are/would be. It actually spans across 7 separate hundreds and a fair chunk of land not proclaimed within the old system at all. Donama (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That outcome is totally fine by me as well. @ScottDavis: ? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Noting that the original article appears to have been created by a local resident (thanks Bruce.schaefer), but the content has drifted since then to match our style on other locality articles, so the move makes sense. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]