Talk:Charlotte, North Carolina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charlotte, North Carolina article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Charlotte, North Carolina: edit · history · watch · refresh
Archive
Archives
*Archive 1


Contents

[edit] removing neighborhoods section

Seeing as how the neighborhoods section is lengthy and completely unreferenced, I would like to remove it. Can I do this without people telling me I'm a bastard?--Loodog 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. I removed a few myself neighborhoods myself and got yelled at. Since a lot of them have articles of their own, I would advise against removing the whole section. That section though, does need some trimming, and some sources, to comply with No Original Research. --Triadian 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this, I enjoy this information so far, but I added reference to the Cherry neighborhood and Brooklyn, both historical black neighborhoods that was removed from the page, If someone has information to add, that's fine, but I don't agree with taking it upon oneself to remove another's edit, if it's accurate. (with the exception of notable people, if all Charlotte has is someone like "Clay Aiken", this section should be removed.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracebay (talk • contribs)

Gracebay, was your edit sourced?--Loodog 04:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


I've sourced a few of the neighborhoods, so those can stay, but others still need more, so please help me out on that. Also, I've added a rewrite tag because the entries need to correspond with the sources and I don't know what's fact and what's fiction on some statements. --Triadian 06:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since some of the neighborhoods have (probably unsourced) articles of their own, I propose simply leaving a bulleted list of the neighborhoods with a source to that list, which shouldn't be hard to find. This shortens the article, removes ambiguously unsourced material, and leaves wikilinks to the neighborhoods with articles intact.--Loodog 04:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. You could make the list two columns to save space and move the trolley picture elsewhere in the article. If you need help with columns, try Template:col-begin .--Triadian 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. It chopped 10 unsourced kilobites off the page.--Loodog 04:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: My change was reverted by TWC. I rereverted it citing that it had been discussed on the talk page first. My reasons for the change:

  • Precendent: most wikipedia articles on cities do not go into detail on their neighborhoods
  • Detail level: it added 10kb of prose to the page when the information was too detailed for terse all-encapsulating article on Charlotte
  • Sources: the information about the neighborhoods there had serious source problems. Moving them to their own pages allows us to push the source problems off this page
  • Redundancy: about half the neighborhoods already had articles written, most of which were the same length as the section appearing on the Charlotte page.

Nevertheless, if you still beg to differ, please discuss it here.--Loodog 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And to explain what I've been doing for everyone's reference. The Charlotte page is big in terms of file size and it needed to be shrunk down. It was hard for me to scroll through it, so there had to be something done to comply with what Wikipedia suggests is a good file size. Charlotte is a major U.S. city (and I'm not from Raleigh by the way, I'm from Winston-Salem, lol) The neighborhoods section in fact, was a bunch of unsourced information and a lot of the neighborhoods had articles of their own with exactly the same information, just with pictures and such. There was no way of telling which information was real and what was vandalism because there have been so many edits to that section and weasel and peacock words and unsourced claims, that a whole rewrite was needed. So, I thought it was best, as did Loondog, that we just make the Neighborhood section a list of neighborhoods and articles could be added onto it. A short blurp about where each neighborhood is could be in order though beside the link. There were a few exceptions where there are no links yet, like the Elizabeth neighborhood, which has historical signifigance, so if anyone wants to get started on a Elizabeth, Charlotte, North Carolina article, go ahead. I mean, to look at Raleigh (hehe), they just put all their neighborhood names in a box, so this is probably better. Right now though, I'm working on the history section which had lots of incorrect facts in it. Nowhere have I found a 1600s founding of Charlotte... it wasn't even settled until Polk came along. Settlers were still on the coast back then. That's just an example. Just keep in mind, Wikipedia's policy of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I often take that policy lightly though, and claim it will be sourced eventually. That's what the {{Fact}} tag is for... for stuff you know is right, but haven't formatted a source correctly yet. It just helps people researching know what's true and what may be true. Anyway, we're not engaging in groupthink here, we're welcome to any edits and comments and ways to improve this. So if you have a problem, let's discuss. --Triadian 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And if you'd like to view the old neighborhoods section to help you write the individual neighborhood articles, I'll be keeping it in my sandbox for a while, which can be accessed at User:Triadian/Sandbox. Enjoy! --Triadian 07:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The neighborhoods section really should be converted from a list into prose if it's gonna stay. Maybe write a short lead for it, and then create/link to an article using Triadian's old neighborhood section. With references, of course. — aegreen (talk • email) 15:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laundry list tag

I agree with Triadian's laundry list tag — the sites of interest should be cleaned up. May I suggest: a paragraph (5 sentences or so) of prose and a link to the preexisting long tiresome bulleted list.--Loodog 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was going for. It's a place where space can be saved and irrelavent info can be removed. --Triadian 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NASCAR

I removed two unsourced sentences referring to Charlotte as the birthplace of NASCAR. NASCAR was founded in Daytona.CAN 03:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Although it is often referred to as the "birthplace" of NASCAR, it's factually untrue. The region (and not necessarily Charlotte) may be the birthplace of stock car racing but "NASCAR" is a corporate brand name.
The first NASCAR "strictly stock" race (now called Nextel Cup) was held in Charlotte on June 19, 1949, hence the claim to be the birthplace of NASCAR.71.68.109.108 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte is the birthplace of NASCAR.. The first race to be considered a NASCAR event was held at a (now removed) track that was near the Airport. It was near the corner of HWY 74 and Little Rock Road in the fall of 1948.

[edit] Mass transit

I removed a lot of original research from this section. It contained three references: two were to a blog and the third didn't link to a home page rather than a specific article containing the presumed facts. Sourcing problems aside, the detailed nature of this section indicates it might be more appropriate for its own article. Rklawton 13:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The mass transit section in this article is way too long and goes into far too much detail for a city article. All that really needs to be covered in this article is the fact that it's there, maybe some details on what parts of the city are connected, who runs/maintains it, and maybe **some** details on future expansion. Currently, it has way too much information on the controversy surrounding the project, which needs to be moved into the CATS article. As it stands now, this article wouldn't even get past Good article candidate stage. Dr. Cash 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, there's a lot of detail superfluous to an article about Charlotte, in general. There's the whole light rail political debate. Please trim.--Loodog 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That Charlotte-Douglas picture is definately NOT CLT-Douglas Intl Airport. If you look at the picture closely, there is a place with "DUBAI" in the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.109.40 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that you noticed it too. It wasn't. Take a look at Airport picture. — aegreen (talk • email) 03:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrected User Rklawton's concerns. Shortened section. www.mecklenburgtransit.com is a repository for MULTIPLE government and think-tank studies, as well as information from the NC Department of Transportation, Charlotte Department of Transportation, and the Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) - please take time to study the website and its relevant sourcing before just dismissing (and deleting) out of hand. Here is the Wikipedia external link policy in sum,"Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail...." Blogs are allowed if the source is an authority. Sources on blog such as the NCDOT, CDOT, and MUMPO, as well as various doctor and engineers in urban planning ARE recognized authorities. Hoopsworldscout 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS: Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. If you're claiming that your source (aka your blog) cites other sources...you can 'directly cite those sources here instead of citing your own personal blog. Metros 09:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links rule #12. Blogs are acceptable "if written by a recognized authority." Author is a recognized authority, and has been on numerous tv and radio shows as a transportation analyst - furthermore, content on the blog is researched and sourced from the NC Dept of Tranportation, Charlotte Dept of Transportation, and MUMPO (Mecklenburg Union Planning Organization) - three of the highest credible sources for Charlotte area transit and transportation Hoopsworldscout 17:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Metros is right. Todd Fuller claims he is a recognized authority, but he clearly he isn't. Just because you work the department, and you've been on a few talk shows does not mean you are the ultimate source of further knowledge on this issue. Also, there's clear COI here, Hoopsworldscout. Please stop trying to find loopholes for your personal websites, and actually use government or established newspapers for external links/references. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I digress, but when does one Admin ever disagree with another Admin regardless of how much profanity or blatantly incorrect information the second Admin puts on Wikipedia? Hoopsworldscout 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beaches

Nothing to do with wikipedia but are there any public beaches around Charlotte like on Norman or Wylie? Seems that there are plenty of boat launches but no public beaches with sand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.2.90 (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airport picture

That's not a picture of Charlotte Douglas airport's concourse. I think its from Dubai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.48.108 (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You were right. Thank you for pointing this out. The photo was added by Darin12345, and I have removed it and removed or reverted a number of other images recently added/changed by him for the reasons explained in my edit summary. Some of the images he added remain, and appear to be acceptable and even nice, but taking into consideration these dubious edits I would suggest their licensing info be investigated. — aegreen (talk • email) 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "QUEEN CITY, shared with (HuH???)

I hope nobody gets angery, but I took the pleasure of earasing the part after: Charlotte is nicknamed the Queen City, "(which it share with cincinatti, buffalo, ect..)". I did this because I, like most people, feel that this page should be just dedicated only to Charlotte, NC not to other cities. However...what really made me take that small part down was that NOWHERE does it mention on the page of Cincinatti or Buffalo that they share their name with Charlottes....so through the process of using logic I concluded "Why should those cities name be mentioned on Charlotte's page when Charlotte's name isn't mentioned on those cities pages?" Thanks. With Respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daritto7117 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. You could link to the disambiguation page Queen City too, which lists cities around the world that use the name, just so readers have the option. — aegreen (talk • email) 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horse Carriage Picture

I just wanted to know what had happened to the last horse carriage picture that was posted on the page by someone. I thought the other one was really sophisticated while the current one poster be Ineffable3000, the current one looks "townish"..(like it was taken in a rural town...while the last one lookd better to me. But it's good enough I guess. Feedback please :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daritto7117 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I removed it because Image:Horse_drawn_carriage.jpg is not of any discernible part of Charlotte that I recognize. I may be wrong, however, so feel free to correct me if you know where it was taken. — aegreen (talk • email) 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phone Call

Hello,

Hope all is well. We just received a harassment phone call a little while ago from someone who is involved with this Charlotte Wikipedia page to our office.

There have been many phone calls to our office since we went live back in March from local residents and visitors who visit this page who want to know why we keep removing 360Charlotte.com from the Charlotte wikipedia page. They ask us why we keep removing the link because they have pointed friends, relatives, newcomers to this page to find our visual directory since it has been informative, helpful etc.

They also point to two of our partners (360wichita.com and 360kc.com) since they are both listed in their respective Wikipedia pages.

We didn't have an answer for them so we decided to post a link ourselves. Apparently participating in our local Charlotte Wikipedia page leaves our team open to harassment.

We are not sure why we are receiving threatening calls to our office when there are folks who want to see our directory listed here.

We are sorry we even have to post this. We thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a COMMUNITY and a place to SHARE information.

Thanks for your time.

The 360Charlotte team JDCharlotte 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't explain the phone calls, but I can explain the link. You see, the link you mentioned above (removed here), was a directory for restaurants, businesses, etc. It was not a link for learning about the city, and therefore, not useful in the article. It was removed in accordance with our external links policy. Acalamari 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thank you for the response and we appreciate your time. Visitcharlotte.com does not seem to have any real information on the city but looks to me like are a listing of restaurants, businesses, services etc. with advertisers and they are allowed to stay linked. It seems like there is some preferential treatment going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDCharlotte (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I've removed that one as well for the same reason; and also it needed a certain piece of software which not everyone may have. Acalamari 21:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate Data

Loodog: Please at least visit this discussion page or at least have your own personal email established before blindly reverting valid data.

Contact Joel Schwartz, environmental engineer, who stated as I said on the page. He was on the radio here in Charlotte on 1110AM WBT discussing this:

[1]

Give him a call if you think I "misread" the report.

Also, look at bts.gov (the Bureau of Transportation Statistics). From 1990-2005 vehicle emissions have plummeted:

[2]

and for re-formulated gasoline and diesel... ditto:

[3]

Please don't delete this again

No, you're reading these reports correctly, but none of them have anything to do with Charlotte. These are national reports. I'm removing this unless you can find something specific to Charlotte.--Loodog 03:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are YOU reading these reports correctly? The reports have to do first with NORTH CAROLINA. Last time I checked, Charlotte is in North Carolina. Second, one of the sources you deleted, Joel Schwartz, environmental consultant, for AEI, was just on WBT 1110 AM right here in Charlotte, saying the text you deleted, and referenced by the sources you deleted. Third, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics data is also relevant to Charlotte b/c it talks about all vehicles throughout the entire country. In sum, it creates a better, more balanced, comprehensive view of Charlotte's climate by stating the above as such. Hoopsworldscout 03:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm misinterpretting these reports, but nowhere can I find any mention of Charlotte or North Carolina. And stipulating that these were about North Carolina, they would still be inappropriate in an article about Charlotte. The rest of NC's air quality might well be improving even as that of Charlotte's decreases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loodog (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then. I'm removing it again, though am fully willing to reinstate it pending discussion here.--Loodog 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Loodog, please take time to properly read sources - Charlotte is not only in Mecklenburg County, it virtually encompasses the entire county (MUMPO source)...Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) [4] (bottom of PDF page 11 of 14) Hoopsworldscout 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21). It demonstrates that the financially constrained long-range transportation plan and the transportation improvement program (TIP) eliminates or reduces violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the nonattainment area that includes:"

There's nothing in first two reports pertaining to Meckelnburg County. The last report does, but is being misconstrued as I've mentioned already, and we're back to why I removed this information in the first place. It's not forecasting air quality; it's saying what air quality in Charlotte would be if the proposed plan were implemented. To keep this information in the article, you must show a source specific to Charlotte that predicts improvements in air quality.--Loodog 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Loodog, incorrect. You are burying yourself in minutiae, and therefore losing the big yourself. Let us try this... I hope you have taken a minute to review the bts.gov source (The Bureau of Transportation Statistics) data from 1990-2005. Have you??? It clearly shows all vehicle emissions have not dropped, but plummeted, including hydrocarbon emissions. And logically, vehicle miles driven have increased from 1990-2005. So, ask yourself how could, stepping forward to the year 2030, this trend suddenly be reversed?

With respect to MUMPO's projection - it is not based on a "plan" it is based almost ENTIRELY on the fact that vehicle emissions make up the overwhelming bulk of ozone forming pollutants (oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds) today. And in the future vehicle emissions ARE projected to fall and fall dramatically. A vehicle made today in 2007 pumps out far less emissions than a vehicle made just three years ago in 2004 - and this holds true for SUVs.

i.e. One could totally remove all other forms of transit, stop all buses, etc. (something that I don't think anybody condones) - and based entirely on vehicle emissions improvements, even given increases in miles driven - overall vehicle emissions will not fall, but plummet nationwide, and in Charlotte. i.e. The projection by MUMPO will have almost no change. In its most basic form, TOTAL vehicle emissions will fall 5-15% per year, every year, even while miles driven in total increase less than 2% per year, every year.

If you want, I will be happy to supply you with contact information with Joel Schwartz at the AEI so he can explain things better. Hoopsworldscout 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading every source that you provide. There is some sort of disconnect between you and I we're not seeing. Source 1 is about Joel Schwartz and does not contain data. Source 2 is national data and not specific to Charlotte, but would be mentionable in an article about emissions in the United States in general. Source 3 falls under the same criteria. If you look at page 10 of Source 4 you find: "In every horizon year for every pollutant, the emissions expected from the implementation of the long-range plan are less than the emissions budgets".
Now, if you are logically inferring what we're trying to show here out of the sources together, it qualifies as original research. We cannot say anything beyond what sources say.
If Mr. Schwartz explains this deduction to me, it still qualifies as original research regardless of the good Joel Schwartz's expertise. We could, however, cite something he has published.--Loodog 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Loodog, do you even live in Charlotte? Again, I think we are burying ourselves too deeply in the finer details. The overall goal is too show even though Charlotte did reach a problem area with respect to ozone, air quality, has, overall improved, and will continue to improve with time.

These statements add necessary balance to this portion of the article. If left out, it paints an inaccurate picture in the reader's mind that just because Charlotte reached violation on ozone - then air quality is also deteriorating. And this would be a false picture. Looking at Gaston County which borders to the west, and Union which borders to the east, on the MUMPO source, one will see the same thing, a general decline in VOC and NOx emissions - "plan" is loosely defined... I have Joel Schwartz sources, and may add them, but I am fearful you will delete those sources as well because even though they may not specifically have the word "Charlotte" in them, they refer to clear national trends which apply to Charlotte. Hoopsworldscout 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 20:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Any trend that is nationally occuring shouldn't be mentioned in this article as if it were something special to Charlotte per wikipedia's undue weight policy. The fact that it has the 16th highest levels of smog is specific to Charlotte.--Loodog 05:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Loodog asked me to help out with this dispute. Let's recall that the job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. The topic of this article is one particular city and all of the sources should be about the city. A source which comments on the general trends in the Southern U.S. would not be helpful for example. In this instance, some sources are being proposed which don't appear to mention Charlotte, or even Mecklenburg County. "A North Carolina Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming" by JOEL SCHWARTZ, and "Future Air Pollution Levels and Climate Change: A Step toward Realism" by Joel Schwartz, do not mention this community. Neither does "Table 4-38: Estimated National Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle by Vehicle Type using Gasoline and Diesel". Therefore they shouldn't be used to support assertions about Charlotte. The "Conformity Analysis and Determination Report" does mention plans for county and so long as we say that these are plans for the county then that's an acceptable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let us take that dog for a hunt... If we use that source and that source alone, the MUMPO Conformity Analysis, then the statements I have added hold true - Charlotte's (and Mecklenburg County's) air quality have improved, and is expected to improve considerably. Stating that Charlotte at one time popped up on a list of top 20 smoggiest cities is a bit misleading. For one, it does not capture a trend, rather, a point in time, unlike the BTS data and the MUMPO 2030 projection. Second, Charlotte is in the top 25 most populated urban areas in the country, therefore, it would not raise an alarm that it would also be in the top 20 for "smoggiest" air.

And, three, "violation" standards for air quality and ozone have constantly been raised, so that somebody is always in "violation." The levels that "violate" today are much higher today than just a few years ago. It is like shooting a basketball at a ten foot hoop, and when the ball is in flight to the basket to the hoop is raised to 11 feet,than later to 12 feet. Hoopsworldscout 03:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the "Conformity Analysis" pdf. The only historical info I see in that document is this text:
  • Mecklenburg County was originally declared nonattainment for carbon monoxide (CO) on March 3, 1978. Mecklenburg County was declared nonattainment for ozone on November 15, 1990. Following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the USEPA designated Mecklenburg County as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone and “not-classified” for CO. Mecklenburg County was re-designated as a maintenance area for ozone on July 5, 1995 and for CO on September 18, 1995. Gaston County was declared nonattainment for ozone on November 15, 1990. Gaston County was re-designated as a maintenance area for ozone on July 5, 1995. In 1997 the NAAQS for ozone was reviewed and revised to reflect improved scientific understanding of the health impacts of this pollutant. When the standard was revised in 1997, an eight-hour ozone standard was established. In April 2004, the USEPA declared the entire Metrolina area as moderate nonattainment for eighthour ozone.
The rest of the document appears to deal with future plans. Since no actual figures are given it is hard to see how much of an improvement there has been during the reporting period. In 1990 Mecklenburg Co. was in "nonattainment for ozone". In 2004 the larger Metrolina area was in "moderate nonattainment for eighthour ozone". I'm not sure how we can discern any improvement from those designations. Is there another source that covers Charlotte, Mecklenburg Co. or Metrolina which would provide more detailed information? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I don't know how to explain it much easier. Let us try this way, "attainment" levels have constantly been raised. i.e. The "attainment" level today, in 2007, is significantly stricter than "attainment" level in 2000, and much stricter than in 1990. In your mind, you are doing a raw comparison of ozone attainment today versus attainment levels 17 years ago. "Failure" has been much easier to obtain today than just a few years ago, as ozone "failure" levels have constantly been lowered, so that somebody is always "failing."

Furthermore, since the BTS.gov data has been yet deleted again, showing a clear trend, with lots of raw data, emissions of vehicles plummeting, not only Charlotte, but nationwide. Since Charlotte is not in some sort of vacuum with respect to vehicles, the data, although national data, applies to Charlotte. i.e. Those same vehicles sampled are using just as much in Charlotte as they are in LA or in Slippery Rock, PA. i.e. number two, Charlotte does not live in some sort of "transportation vacuum" where we use Flintstone powered cars and everybody elses uses reformulated gasoline, and diesel powered vehicles for which the BTS data applies. Hoopsworldscout 03:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I have found an even better source, specific to Charlotte that sums up everything I have been trying to say. See top of PDF page 2 of 20 on the source [5] Hoopsworldscout 04:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This, I find acceptable as it specifically mentions Charlotte and non-hypothetical predications. Good day.--Loodog 14:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Ok I respect the second time a link has been removed from the list of External Links. Please I'm no spammer, just learning Wiki. I read an article about external links just after I submitted and it was removed before I could delete. So accept my apologize.

On another side note, you do provide a no follow on links which is ok, but since you have a page about Charlotte, North Carolina, can we start putting up links or a brief non-link list of local business' in that area?

Wiki pages are starting to appear in the search results if users are looking up certain areas why not provide the local business'?

Again accept my apologize and thank you for the reason why for the deletion.

Seoprincess 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL for why we don't have commercial links. Gscshoyru 20:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Transit

Re-added specifics from Charlotte Observer article about large corporations that donated to transit tax campaign who had direct ties to CATS operations. Please read article Metros. Thank you.Hoopsworldscout 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROBLEM WITH METRO POPULATION.

SORRY, I'M NOT A WIKI EDITOR, SO EXCUSE MY BAD DISCUSSION EDDICT. BUT I WANT TO BRING THE FOLLOWING TO THE ATTENTION OF YOU EXPERTS. THANK YOU.


As of 2008, the Charlotte Metropolitan Area had a population of 2,491,650.[1] OKAY, THIS FIGURE NEEDS TO BE RECONCILED WITH THE OFFICAL METRO DESIGNATION BY THE U.S. CENSUS. THAT FIGURE SHOWS A POPULATION OF ---- #37 Charlotte–Gastonia–Concord NC–SC 1,583,016 ------. THIS COMES FROM WIKIPEDIA PAGE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas A resident of Charlotte is referred to as a Charlottean (IPA: /ˌʃarləˈtiːən/).

[edit] Sub-Pages

I suggest that since we are trying to move this article to GAstatus, that we create sub-pages as to reduce the length of the article and to make it easier for the people reading it. I have already taken the neighborhood section and moved it. This will also make it easier to work with. Input? Canyouhearmenow 14:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] An Idea

I think that is a good idea I just believe if we are doing it for the Charlotte site we should do it for the Atlanta site the Miami site and all the big cities with big sites for easy reading ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.238.191 (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing of estimates

I've reverted city and metro populations back to US Census numbers found here and here respectively. We use only US Census estimates as per WP:USCITY. The Charlotte Chamber of Commerce in particular is eager to inflate the population (by more than 10%!). Of course, such an overestimation is in their interest, which is yet another reason for the US Census figures only.--Loodog (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Census figures are standard and reliably calculated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing it Back

I've change back using both number which I have seen QUITE A FEW CITIES DO. So it is not just the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce. You need to look at other cities sites too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.238.191 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because other stuff exists violating guidelines of WP:USCITY gives no reason to also make this one violate it. Please point me to those other cities and I'd be glad to fix them.--Loodog (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's remember that any source used has to be a reliable third party source. Continuing to revert these edits will lend someone to violate the WP:3RR rule. I am afraid that Loodog has a point and that this may be an issue that would violate WP:USCITY. I would suggest that you find the references and bring them to the talk page and lets discuss them before just placing them in at random. This will only incite a violation of WP:Civility. It may also be helpful to look at WP:Sourcing. It clearly outlines what is and is not appropriate as a reliable source. If you should need help, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Good luck.. Canyouhearmenow 02:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Anon has produced this source from the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, an entity created by local businessmen for the promotion of business. US Census numbers are a superior source for use on population figures, especially considering the consistency WP:USCITY imposes on all like cities. There is only one reliable source that will have estimates for all 259 US cities, and it's not the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce.--Loodog (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
A US Census is always going to be a better source for information. The Chamber of Commerce would also have an agenda to inflate numbers. I am however letting you know that as far as a lower end reliable source, it could be used. I do not think it is the best or most reliable source and I would prefer to see a more stable one used. But I agree with you that the numbers from the Census Bureau would certainly be more appropriate. Just remember to lets try and avoid an edit war.Canyouhearmenow 11:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
All that can be find but you would have to edit all 259 cities if you would like to used only one source that is why I put both numbers in.
Let me reiterate: If there are other cities not following guidelines, they need to be changed too. I haven't checked all 259, but none of the top 20 need to be changed.--Loodog (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing this issue and after consulting with an admin, we both agree that the information that should be cited is that of the Census Bureau. It is the most reliable and widely accepted as a source. So, let's just go with that one. Canyouhearmenow 04:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have looked at the US Census Bureau and here is a link that needs to be used [6]. As you can see, neither one of your numbers are correct according to the bureau's web site. The source currently being referenced leads you to an excel spead sheet and we cannot use that. Also, when you are sourcing, it is better to use cite web with your sourcing and referencing. Here is a link to a very easy way to cite web. Make sure to give the publisher and to add a quote. [7]. I hope this will help. I also hope that this issue between you two can be fixed. As I agree with you that your source is the better and more reliable one, I have to also acknowledge that his is not totally unsourcable either. Its just not the preferable reference. Both of you try to be a little kinder and explain why you feel the way you do about your edit. Remember that through this media, we are not looking each other in the face, so the remarks we make via these talk pages may not seem as nice or be relayed the exact way we meant for them to be. Just a thought to keep in mind.. Have fun and let me know if I can be of further assistance. Canyouhearmenow 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    I fail to see what's wrong with this one. The source you presented is for Mecklenberg County, not Charlotte. Also, I've fixed the citation format.--Loodog (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    First of all, it takes you to an excel spreadsheet which can be altered. Second the formatting of the source was still not correct. I gave you the cite web template which will help you a lot. If you go and look now, you will see how I have fixed the source and referenced it properly. I also understand that the link goes to Mecklenberg County, however when the reader gets to the link, they can go through and find additional supporting information. There is no rule that says there cannot be additional source and reference links as well. In the header of the sentence, the numbers for Mecklenberg are shown. So this source is very appropriate. If you can find another source that leads you to a place that is not an excel spread sheet, then I suggest that we include it. If not, this one is more than sufficient. We should have no further issues with this and lets move onto another part of the article that needs attention. Canyouhearmenow 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Look at the source I provided. It gives you CSV format, not excel. It cannot be changed by anyone except the owner of census.gov webspace.--Loodog (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is ok, but you will have to give a url so that the reader knows from which web site it came from. Taking someone to even an CSV form needs to be sourced as to where it came from. The fact that we put a link that takes us to this page in no way tells us if it is a reliable source or who the source is claiming to be. We cannot find out how they achieved this information or how it was compiled. I hope you can understand that. So, for that reason, we will not be able to use that source. Where did you find it. If you can source that url and it leads you to this excel sheet, then we can look at using it. Canyouhearmenow 14:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While I think the CSV file is ok as it is a file that can be altered only by the Census Bureau staff (it is on the census.gov domain), This might be an alternative that can be used. --Polaron | Talk 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is not acceptable because it does not allow you to have the information as to where the original source came from. If it took you to the census web page and then allowed you to view the material, then it would be a proper source. I do however like the source that you gave and I will incorporate it into the article for Loodog. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 14:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006.html. Go to "Census.gov", click on "Estimates", then "cities and towns", then "places over 100,000", and you get there. It's really not that hard to figure out. The Census Bureau has a nice website.--Loodog (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, the raw ACS figure has been adjusted by the Census Bureau so the two figures don't exactly match. These are the official Census Bureau figures, which match the CSV file exactly. --Polaron | Talk 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • At this point I feel that this fact is extremely well sourced. We can all sleep soundly in that knowledge! LOL Canyouhearmenow 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    I believe LOODOG JUST WANT TO DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, and that is not what this site is all about now I put up 2 figures and I believe that is more then fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.238.191 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Culture, Too much editing, More Info needed!!

I've contributed many pictures to this page and love the way its set up. However, what annoys me is why does everyone screutenize this page sooo much?! Some say its to long others say wheres the source cited. I say both to: shut up. Honestly, we have condensed both sports adn media so much that you cant even see it on the Charlotte, NC page anymore. And where is the culture page?? Us that live here in Charlotte are stereotyped as having no culture in our city like other big cities however we have plenty of culture. We have Carowinds, Discovery Place, The Nascar Hall of Fame, The National White Water Center and hundreds of fine dining resturants and malls!!!

Go look at Atlanta, Georgia's page and go shorten their page which is gigantic and filled with plenty of general information unlike ours!!! It's really annoying that the Atlanta page is sooooo long and ours is so short (poriod). Just my two cents. With Respect...

[edit] No reference for some of Roads and Highways Section

I am going to remoce the following quote from the actaul page soon:

"Charlotte area road conditions are not rated well. In a recent October 2006 study by tripnet.org, an organization that monitors road conditions nationwide, only 58% of Charlotte area roads were rated "good." In contrast, 88% of Atlanta area roads are rated "good." [42] Charlotte's share of good roads has fallen dramatically in recent years. Deteriorating road conditions cost Charlotte area drivers almost $200 per year in additional operating costs. [43]"

The same person who wrote this negative fact is the same person who wrote extreamly positive facts about Atlanta's highways. Surprised? However, that aside, it is not referenced properly either. So I will set it up for speedy deleation soon if the right source refernce is not placed there. With much respect.