Talk:Carolinas

Cackalacky merge

• Neutral Merge is a better answer than delete. Would like to see others' opinions -Jcbarr 13:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• I personally think that the content of the Cackalacky and Carolina articles are significantly different enough to require seperate articles - Zjhafeez 11:39, 21 February 2006 (ET)
• I'd agree with you if both articles weren't stubs.--Attitude2000 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I proposed it. The Carolinas article is just a stub, and the content of Cackalacky applies to The Carolinas, so I don't see why they shouldn't be merged additionally with a redirect. Cackalacky on its own is something of a dicdef WP:WINAD. Incidentally the etymology of Cackalacky seems to be a mystery http://www.ibiblio.org/ncm/wordpress/?p=2 Schizombie 21:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am a 10th-generation North Carolinian, I have lived all over North Carolina (Winston-Salem, Greenville, Raleigh, and Greensboro), and I've NEVER heard of this term, period. Is this some sort of prank, or is the term confined to a particular area or group? Where are the references, after all? - Dtoddmiller 18:49, 3 July 2006 (ET)

Agreed! Enough of the "Cackalacky" crap. As a born and raised North Carolinian, I've heard the term maybe twice, and then only from people from other states...AFTER they'd heard a rap song referencing the nickname. We don't use it ourselves. Don't you "editors" and "moderators" get it? Delete it. It doesn't merit inclusion. And another thing. When you're from North Carolina, you say you're from North Carolina, not "THE CAROLINAS." Same with South Carolinians. People say "The Carolinas" (most aren't from either Carolina) to describe a "region" that has some similarities, yet those same people don't say The Virginias, or The Dakotas. My point is, these terms, including "Cackalacky" aren't used by natives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.112.2 (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Leave Seperate" I'm also an NC native, but I have heard the term. The problem is, it seems to be mostly used in hip hop and military jargon, not widespread use and has no discernible historical attachment. Therefor not meriting inclusion in the article nor deletion. It seems to be a no brainer for separation, too bad I'm a little late for the debate and action. 69.134.147.2 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "From the bottom of tha Duval, Cakalacky to New YorkAnd everybody show'n me love that's one to you al" -T.I.: " Rubberband Man (Does this count as a reference?)--Justbobdanish 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you've never heard it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.--Attitude2000 02:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge This is a term I have heard several Carolinians use. I ended up here after one of them said and didn't know the origin.
• Merge This is a pretty widely-used term (I'm from Cackalacky, myself), and definitely belongs as an aside in the entry on the Carolinas. Someone should probably add more to that article first, though, so that this nickname doesn't dominate the entry. --Garrepi 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Leave Seperate: I think that this term deserves its own article, even if it is short. There should be a clear seperation between this nickname and the CarolinasJustbobdanish 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge This should not be its own article. In addition, the article North Carolina has this term under its nickname section. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article is just that. Merge it or I'll put it up for AFD. Morphh 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Current Tally - 6 Merge, 2 Leave, 1 Delete - Since this has been around since Feb, I'm going to be bold and make the change - otherwise the article will go up for AFD. Morphh 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have heard this term all of my life (and I am from SC), but I do not think it is a derogatory term like the article says. That might need to be edited.

though you may not think it derogatory, there are those of us from the area that have heard it used that way (i am from NC). my understanding, limited though it may be, is that this term originated in Virginia and is specifically intended to mock the linguistic differences between VA and NC. Of course, i am unable to cite a source for this piece of information as it is unciteable (i doubt there has been a book or article written on the subject), though i think it fair to say that "some consider" this term derogatory, even though others may not.

Hi! Cackalacky first reminded me of the German word for cockroaches: Kakerlaken. I didn't find any proof with a short search in google, but it's just an idea. Just ask someone from Carolina about it! 212.23.126.27 06:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Greetings from Germany, GC :)

I'm also from SC and I have never heard the term cackalacky either. Marsman57 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cackalacky was popularized in the early 90's by the rap group Black Sheep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.232.114 (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Can someone help expand the page? Adding stuff about the similarities between the two states, culture, food, music, ect.? BobbyAFC 05:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are there two?

Needs discussion of why there's a North and a South. Tempshill 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cackalacky pt. II

As seen above, the Cackalacky article was merged and redirected into this one, and from that point it was ground down to the point where no hint of it remained, save a "see also" link to Southern American English. A user removed the one remaining reference to the term, claiming that it was unreferenced, even though a reference was provided. I'm not sure why. He also said that the reference did not support the information, but I just read the reference in question, and it does. He seems to have been acting in good faith, but I'm not sure what happened there. Anyway, a search for "cackalacky" redirects here, and there should clearly be some mention. It's a common and documented nickname for the state. Mr. IP (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

cleanup

This article is about "The Carolinas," but the terminology of "Carolina" is used incorrectly throughout. In North Carolina, and everywhere except South Carolina, Carolina refers to either UNC Chapel Hill or the state of North Carolna. 192.104.67.221 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This article survived AFD so now it's time to clean it up. Consensus was that this is a notable geographic concept and that sufficient verifiable 3rd party references can be located to support that. Anything that is North or South Carolina specific needs to go. Only material that covers the region as a whole needs to stay. The contents of this article should support the articles existence, discussion what is common across the region. Currently most sections mostly discuss what is different across the region.--Rtphokie (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• The culture section, should be considered for selective merging into Province of Carolina. However, much of the section speaks to the differences between the states in "The Carolinas" rather than why they are referred to. If this section can't be updated to cover "The Carolinas" as a whole with suffient 3rd party references, it needs to go.

• The cuisine section needs some attention. The references discuss how different BBQ is regionally in North and South Carolina. If sufficient references cant be found to support recognition in the culinary community of "The Carolinas" as a region, then this section needs to go.

• The politics section, again talks about the differences between North and South Carolina. HOw do politics in North and South Carolina make "the Carolinas" a region?

• The Economy section needs to go unless better references can be found. The references cover North and South Carolina seperately. This section seems to draw a conclusion that they economy of the region is similar across the two stations which the references don't support. This section is essentially original research as it stands.

• The Nickname section needs better references and needs to be toned down. The claim that the term is in widespread use is not supported by the references given. Those references all focus on the unknown origin of the word. This section is going to need more than "let's find the word mentioned in an article somewhere" to support the claims of "widespread use". Yes the term exists and was used at somepoint and is used today in some way, but not to the degree that is suggested in this article.

(I am the editor often known as "Mr IP") I agree on the need for cleanup. I'm taking it a bit slowly, w/r/t referencing, but overall the article needs more, less state-specific references, and it also needs far greater coherence. It's too choppy.

• The culture section needs great improvement, but I don't think it should exclude differences between the states. After all, a key focus of the article is the way that two states with a shared history have grown apart at times. Certainly their differing conduct during the Civil War is a subject of much interest.

• The cuisine section should move toward addressing similarities between coastal NC & SC and inland NC & SC. It does a bit of this now, but that will end up as the main focus. The coastal Carolinas form a culinary culture, as do the inland Carolinas. The upland parts are a bit more mysterious to me; I'll have to search that.

• I just added some information to the Politics section - information I happened to run across today without having looked for it. Essentially, the statistician Nate Silver (best known for his baseball work, and now his work at the election site FiveThirtyEight) has done a similarity comparison of all US states to all other US states, and has found that NC & SC are the two most similar American states according to his methodology. I was a bit surprised at this myself, but as he is a prominent statistician with his own Wikipedia entry, I've included the info.

• I feel that the main issue with referencing the economics section has been that the best available references - as is often the case with state economic information - have been governmental. For this reason, each source tends to be from either NC or SC, as these are formal governmental units. Finding quality economic information from a non-governmental source may take me a little longer.

• I will tone down the nickname section. It currently consists of some text I pulled out of an older version of this page and rewrote to work in some references. It is my belief that the original text may have been written as part of an effort to promote a barbecue sauce, which would account for the somewhat effusive style. As for usage, I will try to find something giving some idea of the frequency or lack of frequency.

I will be working on all of the above piecemeal over the next couple of months. 65.190.92.233 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to the article, NC was not the last state to secede, Tennessee was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.201.226.103 (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Politics

For some reason, I don't think it's appropriate to have the bulk of this section talking about historical politics. The specific entry: "On the other hand, he described South Carolina as 'one of the poorest American states, and probably one of the balkiest.'" slightly offends me as well as many others I'd imagine. The state has come a long way since that 1940s quotation. If it's to remain in the article, maybe the heading should be changed to "Political History". Or, you could make some mention of the current politics of each state. As it stands, that sentences does nothing to support the claim that NC and SC share close political viewpoints. In fact, its purpose is to illustrate the stark contrast between the two that existed in one period of history. You say "Despite these differences" to qualify that claim, but it's completely uneccesary as those differences of which you speak were from SIXTY years ago. It's pretty slack to keep in the quotation about how you can't get a divorce in South Carolina-- which is completely untrue today (even if it was in the 40s). Such statements do not properly characterize the states, and retard their attempts to "move on" from their unpleasent pasts. Don't mix past and present politics in the same section without explicitly mentioning that they aren't the current practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is far too much scalawag bias here, putting down other states for the sake of NC's pride. Far too many carpetbaggers in the Triangle lend credence to the idea that NC is not Southern. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File:The_Carolinas.PNG may be deleted

I have tagged File:The_Carolinas.PNG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I get the impression that the word Carolinas is never used to mean this joint hypothetical entity without being preceded by the. This being the case, surely the relevant name, as in the article title, is The Carolinas, and so, as a proper noun, both words should be capitalised. Kevin McE (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Many other proper names always have the article, but I've never known anyone to insist on The Everglades, The Atlantic Ocean, The Swanee River. —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

tennessee

Shouldn't Tennessee be portrayed as part of the Carolinas in the image for the article? It was only surrendered to the Union long after NC and SC were separated. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

stub stub stub

Major Highways

See also: North Carolina Highway System

See also: List of numbered highways in South Carolina

Media

Television

See also: List of television stations in North Carolina

See also: List of television stations in South Carolina

Radio

See also: List of radio stations in North Carolina

See also: List of radio stations in South Carolina

Counties

See also: List of counties in North Carolina

See also: List of counties in South Carolina

There's exactly as much point in having these sections with their See alsos here as in, say, United States, i.e. none. I'm deleting them. —Tamfang (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Carolinas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070814041808/http://www.ncruralcenter.org:80/rdwi/about.htm to http://www.ncruralcenter.org/rdwi/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Carolinas. 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/20080423100945/http://www.state.sc.us:80/scdah/history.htm to http://www.state.sc.us/scdah/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830092957/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.2/br_55.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.2/br_55.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212225747/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/12/3005507/sc-nc-border-moving.html#storylink=misearch to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/12/3005507/sc-nc-border-moving.html#storylink=misearch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Name

Evidently as the article explains, "Carolina" is named after Charles IX of France. This seems abstruse, and should (perhaps) be explained. To further complicate things, the lead states that it was named after Charles I of England (?) --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:AC43:3B49:CF5E:E4EF (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Riggsbee Tammy kellim (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

We need to move this article

This should not be at "The Carolinas", as the "The" is a purely grammatical element that is not capitalized in running text. This article should be at Carolinas. --Khajidha (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Per WP:THE: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name. Otherwise, do not..." - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I was expecting more discussion. There was a stalemate over at Americas recently and a recent move to The Californias. Not to mention The Canadas, The Dakotas, The Floridas, and The Virginias. --Khajidha (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:THE is quite clear, and makes no exceptions for geography. If you want to allow for exceptions, that is the place to argue for them. - BilCat (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I agree with you and the guideline. I just expected somebody to complain. What should we do about the other examples I listed? --Khajidha (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's because it's a low traffic article. WP:THE absolutely does not suggest the article should be moved here, though you have to actually read it, and look at the situation to realise that. Literally the first case of when to title articles with The in WP:THE says this article should be located at The Carolinas, but this is what happens when people try to enforce guidelines without taking the time to understand them (or even, that they're guidelines precisely because you shouldn't follow them in some weird cases when it's clearly detrimental to the encyclopaedia to do so). WilyD 04:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone disagrees with your interpretation of the guidelines doesn't mean they haven't read them. In addition, the word "Carolinas" doesn't appear on that guideline page, so it doesn't "literally" say the article should be located at "The Carolinas". In fact, it meets neither case listed under "Convention" in the lead. - BilCat (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I wow lot of info 2600:1700:960:2250:3184:6B9D:6CCF:61EE (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)