Talk:Sierra Leone Krio

Move

Unless there's a distinct non-Sierra Leone Krio people, I strongly suggest we move this to Krio people. NickelShoe 04:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is another group called just "Krio". However, there are many groups all over the world who are called by similar names - Creol, Kriol, Kreyol, Kriolu, etc.. -- all variants of "Creole", like (presumably) "Krio". The "see also" list at Krio should give you an idea.

I suppose that those readers who are already familiar with the Krio will not mistake it with the Kriol or the Kreyol or whatever, so the longer name for them is just a nuisance. However, the title of a Wikipedia article should be chosen for the benefit of the general reader, not for the convenience of those who are familiar with the topic. Believe me, when I started cleaning up these articles, I had a very hard time telling one language from the other; especially since some such groups had no articles (and some still don't), others were listed with improper names, etc.

This naming scheme — "PLACE NAME people" — was the simplest and most natural uniform solution that I could think of. It also tells readers (e.g. in search result pages) where the people is from Africa or America, without the reader having to open the article to find out.

If you are not convinced, at least please wait for a few months until the dust settles and we can be sure that there are no other Krios in Mongolia or Transcaucasian Patagonia.

Would it be enough to just have Krio people redirect to this article until then?

Thanks, and all the best, Jorge Stolfi 05:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I also learned that there is an "Iberian" kingdom in the Caucasus, and there were Veneti in Italy, France, and the Baltic, all unrelated. Apparently much editing has been wasted by people who were misled by the similarity of names. Jorge Stolfi 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe a general reader will ever type in "Sierra Leone Krio people". When two people have similar names, we don't, for instance, call one Catherine Elliott (singer) and one Kathryn Eliot (archaeologist). Because their names are already different. We do, however, put a leading line to the effect of

This article is about Catherine Elliott, the singer. For the similarly named archaeologist, see Kathryn Eliot.

I think that would be the appropriate approach here. Additional words in the title only it harder to find for people less familiar with the subject matter. NickelShoe 15:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Because a reader would have to guess as to your naming scheme and already believe that there's multiple Krio peoples. A casual reader just wants to know about Krios and types as such. If there's more than one with the same name, we need a dab page. If they're only similar, then we need the leading lines to help people get where they're going. NickelShoe 15:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course a random user will not type Sierra Leone Krio people. He will type "Krio" and get to the disamb page (which would have to be the case anyway, right?). That page offers him the choice between Sierra Leone Krio language and Sierra Leone Krio people (and Cape Krio too; but, granted, that is a very obscure sense which doesn't even have an article yet).

Or, if he is a bit more Wikipedia-wise, he will type "Krio people" or "Krio language", and (assuming that there are no other Krio peoples/languages out there somewhere) will go directly to the correct page.

Would that be OK, at least for the time being?

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For the time being, of course that's fine (wrong, I believe, but acceptable). But if no other Krios pop up, I still believe this should be moved. NickelShoe 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just found a tribe in Indonesia called the Krio Dayak, after the Krio River. OK, they doesn't seem to be as important as the Sierra Leone Krios; and that may be just a variant spelling (one page seems to say that it is also called Keriu language). So it may be argued whether it counts or not. Anyway... Jorge Stolfi 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm convinced that if two subjects have different names, even if only minimally different, that's sufficient for the differences in their titles. Additional disambiguation goes in the cute little top sentence or a disambiguation page. That's what they're for. Titles should only contain disambiguation if absolutely necessary, and here it's not. NickelShoe 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

William John Campbell mayor of Freetown

William John Campbell was a mayor of Freetown and was a prominent Krio figure during the late 1800s to early 1900s-because it is hard to research mayors of Freetown I have little information on him-but he was a mayor of Freetown and was Nigerian born. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Copyright problem

I have marked the Nova Scotian Maroons section as a copyright violation from "The Jamaican Maroons" Black Cultural Centre for Nova Scotia. --Bejnar 22:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Long paragraphs

Several sections in this article consist of single, "run-on" paragraphs which dearly need to be broken up into paragraphs of reasonable length to facilitate readability. Cgingold 12:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then correct the problem. You should only "discuss" an issue that would be disputable. I think paragraph breaks would be a pretty safe change. -- Jophus00 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Population figures

There is clearly wide disagreement over these figures, and no sources are cited. Are they from the 2004 census? (or are anonymous editors just playing games as they did six months ago with district populations?) I suggest that we delete the disputed population figures until we find an accurate source, or, as a compromise, round them to one significant figure. What does anyone else think? Dbfirs 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Soyinka and Cheney-Coker.jpg

The image Image:Soyinka and Cheney-Coker.jpg 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. --05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tone of the article

The Modern Culture section of the article is full of the kind of sweeping generalisations that were common in nineteenth century orientalist "People of the World" children's books, but which are not really helpful or appropriate in a twenty-first century encyclopaedia. I don't really feel I'm qualified to correct this, but I would suggest that if broad generalisations are all that can be provided, they should at least be identified as such in the text.

For example: "The Creoles are a sociable people, given to joking and teasing." This sentence is as ridiculous as if, in the French People article, there was a sentence saying: "French people are surly and rude, yet have an impeccable sense of fashion." I think the general tone of at least this one section of the article needs to be changed.--Benwilson528 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire article quality is very poor with sweeping sections of WP:OR and WP:POV. It's written as an essay, not an article. I've flagged many requirements for citations. I will consider removing unreferenced material wholesale should citations not appear in a reasonable period. Almost the whole article appears to be based upon conjecture. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)