Talk:Burra, South Australia

Suggested merge

Kooringa is an article pointed to from teh 1911 encyclopaedia. This article already mentions tha t a number of villages all came under the name "Burra" in 1940, it seems appropiate to merge them here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I relaxed about that Scott. As I created it I'll merge it. Regards -- Ian ≡ talk 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

support merge but also can we create an additional redirect (not double redirect though) for Kooringa, SA to Burra, SA--A Y Arktos 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Australia Discussion

Been working on this for some time and I'd like an assessment from an uninvolved editor thanks ! Peripitus (Talk) 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Gave it a B (though it could make Good Article). List it for peer review, and go from there. Low importance because it's a small town. Iorek85 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a candidate for mid importance due to the significance of Burra to the early history of South Australia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mid, suggest nominate for GA now its taking 3-4 weeks to reviews. Gnangarra 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the Low - there's tons of historical towns with some claim of importance to Australian history. I don't think it's as important, or likely to be searched as, say, Blue Mountains, Daintree Rainforest or Broome (though it is more important than Blacktown, Boggabilla and Boggabri, but I'll be fixing that soon). Still, I'm not that fussed either way. A month for a review! Jesus, just gor for the G.A then. :) Iorek85 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Output of mine in first 15 years

Currently says: The Burra mines supplied 5% of the world’s copper for 15 years .[3], "

I am fairly sure that when I wrote an essay on the Mine (principly on the strike of 1848) the value was 50% of the world supply (and 80% of South Australia's) over those 15 years. I haven't got my copy of Monster Mine handy though (recently moved house), and it's been a few years since I wrote the essay; so if anyone else would check this?

David

I'll check the book again on the weekend but I think the figure in the article is correct. The mine produced somewhere in the region of £5M over it's lifetime which amounts to ( I think ) less than 4,000 tons per year at peak production which sounds very low for 50% of world production. 80% of SA might be correct but I really havn't researched this beyond the books by Ian Auhl yet - Peripitus (Talk) 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Checked the book and updated the article - 5% of world output is correct and the mine also produced 89% of SA's output - this declined to 1% and 15% from 1860 to 1870. Peripitus (Talk) 07:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)