Talk:Charlotte, North Carolina/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

User:Semolina Pilchard

Notes on today's Charlotte edits:

-- Reverted to "... provides the region's economic and cultural heartbeat." In terms of style, the word "lifeblood" is a cliche in this context; additionally, "lifeblood" makes an inexact metaphor here.

-- Removed these redundancies:
"... currently under construction ..."
"... tallest building between Philadelphia and Atlanta on the East Coast."
"... would later become ..."

-- Recast for clarity: "This crossroads, which sat atop a long rise in the Piedmont landscape, would become the heart of modern downtown Charlotte. The streets are Trade and Tryon, the latter named for William Tryon, a royal governor of colonial North Carolina."

-- Restored original casting of lead sentence, for style purposes. ("The Queen City ...") Accurate factual presentation in an encyclopedia can be achieved without dry and repetitive prose. - Semolina Pilchard 15:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

World's 2nd biggest financial centre?

The first sentence claims that Charlotte is the world's 2nd largest financial center. Tokyo, London, Frankfurt, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Paris and a host of others would probably disagree.

I've never heard a claim of the world's 2nd largest, but it's a known fact that in the US we are the second largest banking center

As far as financial assets, yes Charlotte is number two in the United States to NYC. There are a lot of banks headquartered here, including Bank of America and Wachovia. Charlottes banks now hold over nearly two trillion dollars in assets due to recent acquisitions by BofA and Wachovia. Here is an article from a non-Charlotte source so it is not biased:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06176/701039-28.stm

I think based on this information as well as other info, we can say that Charlotte is the UNITED STATE's 2nd larging BANKING center.

Nicknames

I'm not the one who deleted the nicknames but I don't think what was put back in

By most measures, Charlotte is likely not the 2nd largest financial center in North America, New York and Toronto both definitely being larger. Neither is Charlotte likely 2nd even in the US, Los Angeles outstrips it by most measures, and is generally held to now surpass Toronto as 2nd in North America.

Italic textActually, yes Charlotte's banks possess way more assets than LA. Charlotte is without a doubt 2nd to NYC in terms of a financial center (how much money all of the city's finacial institutions hold).

These kinds of rank comparisons are difficult to define much less measure and therefore easily come into dispute. They should not be made unless held obviously true, which is not the case with Charlotte. It is fair to say that Charlotte is one of the major financial centres of the United States, but possibly not more than that. MinorRoadsKill 6 Jan 2005

Actually, it says Charlotte is the world's second biggest BANKING center. Is there a distinction to be made between "banking" and (your) "financial"? (I cannot attest to the validity of the assertion either way.) -- anon

Evidence for Charlotte's status as #2 financial center in USA, maybe NA (Certainly not world). Facts of top 2 banks headquatered in Charlotte

Two major bank headquarters (Bank Of America and Wachovia) Combined assets of: $1,137 Billion (BAC: $736 Bil -- 2003 Annual report) (WB: 401 Bil -- 2003 Annual Report)

Approx Employees Total of both Banks: BAC: 144k, WB: 95k. Charlotte Based Employees (Approx): BAC: 65k WB: 70k (Wachovia is considerably more consolidated in Charlotte than Bank Of America is).

There are a few other banks/financial institutions that I know of with significant employee presenses in Charlotte:

Visa, American Express, GE Capital, BB&T

"Heartbeat"???

"It is the Carolinas' largest city, the region's economic and cultural heartbeat and the county seat of Mecklenburg County."

I find the term "heartbeat" to be more sentimental than informative... Also, I don't think that everyone would agree that the sentence is totally true. Obvously Charlotte is the county seat of Mecklenburg County, and it's pretty clearly the largest financial center in the Carolinas. But is it the Caronlinas' #1 cultural center?? That's more a matter of opinion I think.

When I lived in NC, many people I knew spoke of Charlotte as being relatively devoid of culture for a city of its size. One could argue that Metro-Raleigh was the number #1 cultural city, being the state capital of NC and home to so many universities and such. The case could also be made for Greensboro/Winston Salem - home to Wake Forest, the NC School of the Arts, and a number of other notable schools, and to RJ Reynolds Tabacco (tabacco is certainly a major part of the history of the Carolinas. And of course we can't forget about Charleston SC, the starting point of the Civil War and one of the cities that was left most intact by that war - and to this day a large percentage of Carolinans still see that city as a major site of their heritage. So yeah - I don't think there's any concensus that Carlotte is the #1 cultural center of the Carolinas.

Metro-Charlotte isn't even the definative leader in terms of population - the 2000 census has all of Mecklenburg coming in at just under 700,000 Gaston has 190,000, Cabbarrus has about 130,000, Union about 125,000, and York Co. SC around 165,000. So that all adds up to around 1.3 million. By contrast, in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle we have Wake County at around 630,000, Durham Co. with about 225,000, Orange with about 120,000, and Chatham with another 50,000. And that all adds up to around one million. And for the Triad: Guilford has around 420,000, Forsyth about 305,000, Randolph about 130,000, and Davidson around 145,000. Also around one million total. The Carolinas are actually noted for having a spread out population that's not centered around one or two large metro-areas, though I'm sure many of Charlotte's leaders aspire for their city to gain that status - it still hasn't quite happened yet.

--Blackcats 03:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I looked through the history, and traced back the origin of the "economic and culutral heartbeat" statement. An annonomous contributer, with the ISP 152.10.151.21, changed "Charlotte is a major city in North Carolina near the border of South Carolina" to "Charlotte is the larges city in North Carolina near the border of South Carolina, and is the economic and cultural center of the Carolinas." [1] Notice the shift from "a" to "the." Another annonomous user, 38.211.17.44, then introduced the emotive word "heartbeat" [2] (think "heartbeat of america, chevrolet!") Anyhow - since neither of these annonomous users offered any reason for their changes or cited any sources, I'm gonna go ahead and change that section to be more npov.

"One of the fastest-growing and most prosperous American metropolises, Charlotte, North Carolina is the country's second biggest banking center. Nicknamed the Queen City, Charlotte is located near the border of North Carolina and South Carolina. It is the Carolinas' largest city, the region's economic and cultural heartbeat and the county seat of Mecklenburg County."

will be changed to:

"One of the fastest-growing and most prosperous American metropolises, Charlotte, North Carolina is the country's second biggest banking center. Nicknamed the Queen City, Charlotte is located near the border of North Carolina and South Carolina. It is the Carolinas' largest city and the county seat of Mecklenburg County."

I think that Charlotte being an economic center is pretty self-evident when the paragraph already said it was "the country's second biggest banking center." And we can maybe add back in that it's a (not the) "cultural center of the Carolinas" when/if the article is expanded to address metro-Charlotte's culture in a little more detail. Hopefully this will work for everyone, if not then we can discuss it some more here... --Blackcats 06:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- In response to the topic creator, from an anonymous user: Charlotte's metro population is much higher than Raleigh-Durham's. According to the most recent census estimates on Emporis.com, Charlotte's metro is 2,124,013. Raleigh-Durham's is 1,405,868. Quite a difference. There are more counties in Charlottes' metro than the ones you listed, including Cleveland, Lincoln and parts of Iredell and Lancaster counties. Admittedly population has risen much in both metros since 2000, but I believe those counties I listed were part of the metro then as well. I don't know who edited Charlotte's main page to show 1,474,000 metro population recently, but it was very incorrect, so I took it upon myself to edit back in the amount listed on Emporis, since it is both a respectable city database website and is closer to the general concensus that Charlotte's metro is just over 2 millon. And Charlotte is indeed the inarguable center of the Metrolina area. Charlotte's in-city population is around 650,000, since the latest estimates after the recent land annexation. The closest to that in the metro is Gastonia, with just under 70,000. Raleigh and Durham are similar in size, and even have a suburb (Cary) that is almost a third of Raleigh's population. there are similar situations in the Triad with Greensboro and Winston-Salem both vying for status as the center of their metro. All three metros are very suburban and spread out in nature, but compared to Charlotte's, the Triangle and the Triad are incredibly decentralized. Before you would say that Charlotte being the undeniable center of its metro "hasn't happened yet", I would politely urge you to go down to Metrolina, check out Charlotte and then check out the outlying suburbs and exurbs. There will be no question as to the fact that Charlotte has the best control over sprawl and decentralization of all of the NC metros, even based solely on the amount of people it has contained within it and how they are dispersed among its "sphere of influence". I won't even bother to defend Charlotte as being a cultural capital of North Carolina... In opinion that's Asheville. But in all other respects it is the closest to a major city NC can hope for right now. And I'm done.

According to the US Census bureau's official definition for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord metropolitan area, it does seem like the area is only 1.4 million. Maybe this has changed since the 2000 census. And yes, Charlotte is the inarguable center of the Metrolina area. As for being a cultural capital, that would require Charlotte have some culture. ;) (I live in Concord, I know what I'm talking about! :P) However, I'll double-check the figure for the metro area. --Golbez 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the census has two "official designations" for Charlotte's Metropolitan area. One of them is the Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is roughly a million and a half and there is the Combined Statistical Area, formerly known as the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or CMSA which is now over two million. I personally prefer the CMSA, as I think it more accurately reflects the extent of Charlotte's influence. But that is just me. --Dinobrya 27 April 2006

Mediterranean climate??!!!

"Residents of Charlotte enjoy a quasi-Mediterranean climate"

I don't think that before the advent of air conditioning too many people would use the word enjoy when talking about the climate of the Southeast in the summertime. But at any rate - the humidity in that area is way to high to be considered Mediterranean, ore even "quasi-Mediterranean." The proper designation would be humid subtropical, on the cusp of humid continental. The Mediterranean climate article informs us that: "They are never on the east coasts of continents."

--Blackcats 04:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected this section. --Blackcats 05:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Cozy Place -- Or Is It?

I would first like to start off this comment by saying... Blackcats, If you have such an obsession over Charlotte that you would go to the point of asking them to change the article about its "Economic and Cultural Heartbeat" and "Its Climate", than you shouldn't be bashing it! It sounds like you live near Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill because you said "we" when reffering to it, which sounds a lot to me like your jealous because you live in the North-Carolina-city that doesn't get as much credit as Charlotte. Just because Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill are all smaller than Charlotte doesn't mean that you need to bash it. If your that obsessed, move there! You need to recognize that Charlotte is the 2nd Largest Banking Center in America, behind NYC! What more do you want for Economic Heartbeat? Secondly, the averages for race in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill triangle is 62% White, 27% Black, 6% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 3% Other, and 2% Interracial. Where as in Charlotte, it is 58% White, 33% Black, 7% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 4% Other, and 2% Interracial. There almost exactly the same! The only thing different is, the "triangle" has more white people and only 1% more Asian People! Charlotte has more Black People, Hispanic People, and People whos race is unknown (other). If your complaining that Charlotte isn't as diverse as the "triangle" than your wrong because you just read the facts! To prove my point even more, go to (www.fedstats.gov) . Go to NC, and then all of the cities you want to check out! Average the "triangle" together and see what you get! The same thing I did! So that solves your "Cultural Heartbeat" issue. If you think about it, since Charlotte has more people than the three cities/towns combined (again, use the website for reference) that means that there are even more people of each race (in number form) than the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area. You need to look in the mirror and see that none of the other cities in NC even come close to Charlotte's population (notice I said cities not metropolises). So your comment that says, "The Carolinas are actually noted for having a spread out population that's not centered around one or two large metro-areas, though I'm sure many of Charlotte's leaders aspire for their city to gain that status - it still hasn't quite happened yet." is wrong. Look in the mirror once more! Charlotte has gained that status! Being the 23rd largest city in America... I think it's obvious it has. Charlotte's 2000 population was 540,828. The next closest city was Raleigh with 276,093. Charlotte is almost exactly double that! Get over it! Charlotte is one of the fastest growing Cities in the USA. Go to (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html) for proof. It shows that Charlotte grew 36.6% of its population in 10 years. That is the fourth highest for the 50 Largest Cities in America. That means that if the rate stays the same, Charlotte's population in 2010 will be 738,771. If you multiply through all of the cities, you will find that Charlotte will be the 19th Largest city in America! So, has it gained its status yet? We all know that answer... YES! The leading race in Charlotte is decreasing, while the not much smaller races are increasing rapidly; mainly the Hispanic and Black Population. So in 2010 and Present Day you should look back at your comments and my comment and you will realize that you were wrong for accusing Charlotte of issues that don't apply to it. Now about it's climate... First of all, the air conditioner was invented becuase we live in the 21st century. So there's no need to live in the past and say, "I don't think that before the advent of air conditioning too many people would use the word enjoy when talking about the climate of the Southeast in the summertime." Second of all, I don't know where you're from but unless you live in Los Angeles or some other Southern California City, your not gonna find an area whos climate doesn't have a problem. Let's take a look all around the United States. The Northeast (NYC)-- Wet and Cold. The Southeast (Charlotte)-- Wet and Hot. The Mid-Atlantic (Washington DC)-- Wet and Temperature is usually Warm. The North (Minneapolis)-- Freezing and Usually Dry. South (Dallas)-- Dry and Really Hott. The Florida Region-- Really Hot and Non-stop rain. The Mid-America Region (Nebraska)-- Dry and Average Temperature. The Northwest (Seattle)-- Cold Winter and Cold Summers. The Southwest (Pheonix)-- Dry and Super Hot! The Southwest (Los Angeles)-- Practically Perfect besides the occasional dry spell. That covers all of America. There is a problem with climate no matter where you live (besides southwest) so you sound like one of those people who complain with just about anything they can. In conclusion, (to all the people who read this to know what Charlotte is really about), Charlotte is, diverse, economic, fast-growing, beautiful landscape (mountains and beach), warm weather, and entertaining-- all of the factors that make up a dazzling city.

(In response to the annonymous tirade above) - Someone may have an obsession with Charlotte, but it's certainly not me. I simply stubled upon the article and found its intro to be very biased and sentimental. Great for a chamber of commerce brochoure, but not so good for an encyclopedia. I'm not from the Triangle or anywhere else in NC. I'm from up north, though I did spend some time in the mountains of NC, where I could tollerate the climate ;-) I often use the expression "we have" when doling out statistics, but maybe that's just a Yankee expression - I dunno. I still stand by my assertion that Charlotte is not the definative leader in terms of population. As for growth, Cary and other towns in the Triangle have been noted for their high growth rates. Anyhow - I'm sorry if I offended you by recounting how people said that Charlotte was relatively devoid of culture. I wasn't talking about ethnic diversity, but about how people felt that Charlotte was more of a sterile, corporate city. I also got the feeling that some saw Charlotte as less southern than other parts of NC, due to the large influx of "bankers from New Jersey" and other folks from elsewhere in recent years. And yes, people could complain or brag about just about any climate - there's not agreement on which is best or most "enoyable," which was my point in the first place. The point is that all these sort of things are subjective, and we need to present the facts, not assert sentiments. We need accurate, verifiable information, such as "Charlotte is in the humid subtropical climate zone." That's great that you love Charlotte, but this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. I may have missed something in that rant above, if so, you can point it out and I will respond. I'm going to continue to montitor this article and make sure that it maintains its Neutral Point of View. --Blackcats 08:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: << people felt that Charlotte was more of a sterile, corporate city >> and <<people said that Charlotte was relatively devoid of culture>> THIS IS VERY TRUE -- if you are thinking of moving to Charlotte, think twice because it is boring, nay, EXTREMELY DULL here. I was born here in 1982 and have lived in the Charlotte Metro region my whole life and let me tell you, this place is absolutely devoid of ANY and all culture outside of the University Area and NoDa and maybe a couple other areas; the suburbs are even worse unless you count Wal-Mart and McDonalds as cultural centers. Other than that, it's all strip-mall shopping, bad TV-shows, hours in traffic on lonely highways populated with mean drivers, bad urban planning, and NASCAR. And even the 'cultural areas' of the region are nearly devoid of zest and vitality, though at least they TRY; there is a tiredness here, an utter lack of exuberance and liveliness...morale is low, "same old, same old." BTW: if you think Charlotte is bad, you should experience Monroe or Gastonia...[shudders, cold chills up and down my spine, cold sweat beading on my forehead]

Now, there are some positives about the area, but in my opinion they don't stack up to the negatives. The positives: generally nice populace (except on the road), relatively safe/not crime-ridden, decent climate, greenspace/natural greenery (rapidly disappearing), many jobs (albeit low-paying), brash (but muddled) economic expansion in a growing area, etc. There is also a lack of so-called 'natural disasters' such as tornados, floods, volcanoes, landslides, fires, earthquakes, blizzards/ice-storms, tsunamis, terrorist attacks, etc., but there is the occasional hurricane that reaches far enough inland to affect the area. But for myself, these positives are not worth it and I want to move to a place where things are actually happening and I'm not simply sitting around watching people get fatter while they continue to buy, and buy, and BUY SOME MORE! Sales and specials on every corner, CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME! -- they practically force-feed you crap that you don't need here, bad food and plastic goods that break after you use them for a few months (then lumbering/slumbering back to Wally-World, YAY!). People just 'live' here, that's all they do, stuck in their lil' bubble and ingrained routine that destroys the uniqueness of the human-spirit -- I've noticed that there are major problems with drinking/drugs here because of the boredom in the region (get high = something-to-do) and also because it is equidistant between Florida (where all of the drugs come in) and the heavily populated Northeast (where drugs are consumed in vast quantity due to the sheer number of people living there). Drug-runners and dealers can easily keep a low-profile here (just like 'good' (i.e. creepy) John and Jane next door) while their poison naturally filters into the community surrounding them and wreaks havoc on families, children, schools, etc. If the people only had stuff to do they wouldn't need drugs and alcohol -- theaters, block-parties, poetry-readings, discussion-groups, neighborhood sports, artistic events, festivals, museums, libraries, open-forums; all of this is sorely, SORELY lacking in the 20th largest city in the USA. It's a sad, soul-crushing sight to behold, and I've put up with this crap for 23 years -- though I've heard that Ohio is worse. At least most everything here is shiny and new and not old and worn-down like in brown, tarnished Ohio...right?! Just give it a few years people...

Don't get me wrong: the Charlotte-region is a wonderfully pleasant place to raise a family or retire if you prefer a calm, quiet, and unexciting atmosphere/environment, but if you seek to actually challenge yourself artistically and intellectually then you should definitely look elsewhere. I can certainly see why some Northerners might like the dullness and slow-pacedness of the area after growing up in an arrogant, superficial, and "fast-paced-city" that 'never sleeps' -- but let me tell you, Charlotte doesn't sleep, it blacks-out every weekend and brings new-meaning to the phrase "Sleepy Southern Town." It's a good thing that I love to read and write and challenge myself...otherwise I wouldn't have anything else to do but watch endless hours of TV and be a good lil' American consumer like everyone else here. But it's terrible that I have to retreat into my imagination or hang-out with a few like-minded friends just to have a little bit of fun and enjoyment around here -- where are the artists, actors, playwrights, writers, feminists, philosophers, eccentrics, professors, weirdos...WHERE?! Is it khaki-pants and a Polo-shirt everywhere that I look, especially right there on the corner of Queens & Queens? This sameness depresses me, makes me hurt for the town that I was born and raised in. I would "pray" for this place but I'm 'spiritual' (not fanatically religious) like all of the other close-minded Bible toters 'round here.

Charlotte is the quintessential American city ("Anywhere (or Nowhere) USA") due to the extreme normality, banality, and blandness of the place; things just press-on, insipid people working and spending, working and spending, working and spending. If you want to move somewhere halfway interesting in NC try Asheville or Chapel Hill -- I'll be moving on myself here very soon, leaving the leaden, stuffy place of my birth and early-years so that I might find new-lands of splendor and interestingness...

[Now end this scathing indictment of Charlotte's "culture"] (I'm going to try and publish this!)

--205.188.117.68 00:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I came from Asheville my dads work moved to Charlotte i hate this place A LOT there is A LOT of CRIME and ROBING'S here its DISGUSTING don't move to CHARLOTTE!!!!!!!

Re: artistically and intellectually

On a quick note....You cannot blame Charlotte for someone not challenging themselves artistically and intellectually. I was born and raised in Charlotte since 1980 and since then I have seen my city grow in numbers, become well known for raising great singers and artist and maintain a sense of "well being" and "family". Living in Charlotte is what you make of it. Being a producer of music, alot of interesting and talented people have recieved inspiration from the city of Charlotte to do great things so if you want to challenge yourself artistically and intellectually then Charlotte is a place to do it.

Cities and Towns within the Charlotte Area

These are not all of the cities, towns, and CDPs in the Greater Charlotte area.

County Seat

Pineville is not the county seat of Mecklenburg. Charlotte is the county seat. The administrative units of the county are in Charlotte. Every listing that I could find had Charlotte as the County Seat. Why did this page change it to Pineville?

Charlotte's Size

I think it is a bit complicated to think of Charlotte as the third largest city in the Southeast. Charlotte's city proper population is larger than that of Miami and Atlanta even though these two cities have larger metros. The Tampa Bay area and the Hampton Roads Metro also have larger metros even Charlotte is more populous than any city in either conurbation. Also Louisville, Jacksonville, Fl and Memphis all have larger proper populations than my beloved hometown of Charlotte but smaller conurbations. Also, am I the only one who thinks that the introduction is a bit fluffy? Can this be verify As of 2005, census estimates show there are 710,949 people living within Charlotte's city limits.

--In response: Notice it said CITY not METRO!!!!!!! If it said metro than I would agree with you! But it didn't. It's bigger than Atlanta, it's bigger than Miami, it's bigger than Jacksonville, Tampa, Louisville, etc. Don't hurt your brain trying so hard to find something to argue about!

--In response to your response-- City often indicates metro as well as indicate population within a city boundary. Number two, there are now more people in Louisville since they recently merged most of the cities and towns in the metro (the Kentucky side of it) into one official city. The population currently stands at 703,282. Jacksonville (population 777,704) has been larger than Charlotte for quite some time. {Struck down my own harsh comment} Dinobrya

Education

I'm the one who revised the educational part of the article to include Davidson. You can't leave that great place out. -Amit

Well I Understnad that, but What about the traffic flow in Charlotte? It is gets preety bad, but I think Atlanta and Miami is worse, but not that close! Charlotte population is at least 651,000and when you right add the 12 nc counties and 3 sc counties that a part of metro Charlotte and none of these place are over ahour of 45 mins from uptown Charlotte you have Charlotte's true metro population which is at least 2,500.000.

Metrolina?

Is Metrolina a real place or is it an invention of local TV newscasters and weatherpersons? If "Metrolina" is another word for the greater Charlotte area it's obvious that Charlotte is included in it. I went ahead and deleted the reference to Metrolina in the introduction.

 And I went ahead and put the reference to Metrolina back into the introduction.  Just like Chicagoland is a well known and widely used term for the Chicago metro region, the Big Apple for NYC, etc.  The term is made up by local personalities and media, but is a widely accepted term, and those that live in the Charlotte region are fully aware of this.

University City

Please stop removing the references to Lowe's Motor Speedway and Concord Mills in the University City blurb. The Charlotte Observer printed a map of University City one time showing that University City included Harrisburg, Concord Mills, and Lowe's. It gives people who aren't familiar with the area a better idea of the area. Thanks. Wikipedianinthehouse 19:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Population Estimates

Throughout this page, I am seeing conflicting updated estimates on Charlotte's proper and metropolitan populations. We need to come to some kind of consensus. Dinobrya 09:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why a whole subheading for sports but not culture?

I have no problem with the substantial section devoted to Panthers, Bobcats, etc. Should there not also be a similar-sized separate section discussing the cultural overview of the city? The funding structure, i.e., Arts & Science Council? The CSO, ballet, theatre groups, gallery scene, development of NODA, so on and so forth?

Culture in Charlotte? You could have fooled me! --205.188.117.68 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte city-651,000 metro-2,500,000

why was poverty info removed?

Why was poverty info removed? I'm going to replace it.

LegCircus 22:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No skyline pics?

I am absolutely DUMBFOUNDED to see no skyline pictures on this page! Charlotte has a very photogenic skyline; I would imagine the citizens of the city would want it showcased. Akhenaton06 12:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Word. LegCircus 21:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte

Charlotte is a growing city. It may be a bit dull at sometimes. Its like a big city with a small town feeling except come rush hour on the interstate. Charlotte IS the 2nd largest financial center in the U.S.(just look at the skyline, their all banks). Charlotte deserves a bit of credit from Atlanta because essentially they're just alike. Charlotte does not rely heavily on NASCAR. I've seen more panthers and bobcats fans than anything. The NASCAR fans are in Concord, Gastonia, and other places. The weather is HOT in the summers and its heaven compared to many northern cities. It rarely snows, and when it does its around 3-12 inches. Then it all melts the next day. The nightlife relies on parties, concerts and other things. Most people go to parties within their communities.

Facts about Charlotte

Charlotte is a growing city. It may be a bit dull at sometimes. Its like a big city with a small town feeling except come rush hour on the interstate. Charlotte IS the 2nd largest financial center in the U.S.(just look at the skyline, they're all banks). Charlotte deserves a bit of credit from Atlanta because essentially they're just alike. Charlotte does not rely heavily on NASCAR. I've seen more panthers and bobcats fans than anything. The NASCAR fans are in Concord, Gastonia, and other places. The weather is HOT in the summers and its heaven compared to many northern cities in the winter. It rarely snows, and when it does its around 3-12 inches. Then it all melts the next day. The nightlife relies on parties, concerts and other things. Most people go to parties within their communities. The crime here in Charlotte is growing, but overall it is a safe city. Charlotte is bigger than any other city in NC. It has an attractive skyline for a southern city. Whoever said that comment about Charlotte being a city where all you do is buy, this is America pal. Charlotte will soon be the talk of the south. It has all the things Atlanta has except maybe the clubs and the MARTA rail, but Charlotte's light-rail system will be completed in 2025. Charlotte is somewhat diverse. The Hispanic race is rapidly growing. The 3 main ethnic groups are whites, blacks, and hispanics. To me Charlotte is more of a suburban city(not a lot of congestion except during rush hour).

Crime

Many of the other large cities have at least some problem with crime, and many of their wiki articles touch on that point. What about Charlotte, does it have a crime problem? Wouldn't it be useful to take note of it in the article? J.B. 2/07/2006

According to local radio, it does. --Golbez 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added some information on crime in Charlotte pulled from the Uniform Crime Reports. It seems Charlotte is a bit high for cities in it's category (cities 500,000 - 999,999 pop) but not totally out of line. Feel free to re-write and re-organize this section as it's probably a bit dry. If anyone has any ideas for how to better present this information, go ahead and fix it up or let me know and I'll give it a try. I pulled all the crime info (National and Charlotte, as well as Raleigh which I'm going to add this section to as well) and put it in spreadsheet, so if you need some numbers but don't want to dig through the UCR to find it, let me know. Treznor 21:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Crime is very bad recently in Charlotte. www.crimeincharlotte.com

Nicknames

I'm not the one who removed the nicknames on May 12, 2006 but the revert back to previous is poorly written and inaccurate so that shouldn't stay either. I'm about to make the following changes but I decided to put my rationale here.

A crown logo appears on many of the city's street signs, perhaps accounting for its nickname, "the Queen City". ' - it was already mentioned in the paragraph above that its nickname is the Queen City. This is redundant. The fact that the crown symbol is on the streetsigns is of little significance at all but more importantly it is just ridiculous to write that the city got it's nickname from symbols on the streetsigns. (As if it were an unknown mystery how the symbols got on the signs) It is positively known where the city got it's nickname and that should be added to the fist mention of Queen City.

Other nicknames include the "Hornet's Nest" and the "Chicago of the South". It has also been called the "San Francisco of the South," because it served as the center of the popular gold-mining industry until the Gold Rush of 1849 attracted miners to California. - Hornets Nest is well known and once again, the stroy behind it should be added. As for "Chicago of the South" or "San Francisco of the South", I've lived here for many many years and have never ever heard either of these phrases before in my life. The gold rush is extremely important bt it is already covered in the history section.

Fair enough & makes sense to me. I had just been trying to clean up the mess that had been there in the prior edit (before the original deletion) -- a lot of the phrasing was awkward/odd. Had no idea as to the accuracy of the names used.--Grinning Fool 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

THough now that I re-read what I had put in there to clean up I see some cut and paste material that I thought I'd trimmed out... --Grinning Fool 01:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Population 2006

There are two other conversations on population but they're old so I started a new one. The estimates of

seem high to me but citations were needed and here they are. City Population is 651,101 according to the official city website [3]. According to Charlotte Chamber of Commerce: Charlotte is 648,139, Mecklenburg is 850,178, Charlotte MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) is 1,594,799, and Metro Region is 2,371,645.[4]

So there are the stats but the only question is "what is a metro area" as listed in the article? Is the metro area the Metropolitan Statistical Area or the Metro Region. Most people define "metro" as the official MSA and not the larger "metro region" which includes 13 counties - most of which don't even border Mecklenburg. Further supporting this statement, if Charlotte Metro Area really had 2,533,000 as the article currently states, it would be listed as #20 in this article which ranks the top metro areas in the US

I switched the article back to 1,594,799 as I believe that is the number that should be there based on these facts. Please use this area if you wish to rebut. Fife Club 14:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again I added the Combined Statistical Area. The Census felt it appropriate to give Greater Charlotte a CMSA population and I do not see why we cannot use both the CMSA and MSA. Several city pages use the CMSA as their metro population. I think it is extremely reasonable to make the public aware of both estimates. Dinobrya 19:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I just know that other people were debating the stats (thinking that they were both "metro" stats) so I dug out the references. As long as we're careful distinguish the differences between the stats I think it's okay to use both types. Fife Club 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Boo Hoo

It seems to me the irrelevant, spiteful attacks on Charlotte rise depending on how many NFL teams the Carolina Panthers leave broken and battered throughout the season.

NoDa

NoDa is a term of contempt and revisionism. North Davidson was a center for the arts before this term was coined. The area has seen development within the past few years, and any historical aspect it once had was stripped. The new crowds and the new arts are empty and cold.

Whoa there unsigned IP 71.75.208.179, I totally disagree. I will yield to your comments about the arts community not being a new thing, but the term NoDa is in no way a term of contempt and revisionism. Perhaps that's your POV but that would be a vastly insignificant minority opinion. NoDa is by far the most common term for the area and it overwhelmingly embraced by the surrounding community as well. They're the ones that came up with the name in the first place and they use the term NoDa for community identification and self promotion. Just look at www.NoDa.org! The area is known as NoDa and the name is not offensive and the name shouldn't be removed from the article.

Whoa there. Whoa. Do you know what gentrification is? Doubt it.

Honestly, no I didn't until just now. (I wiki'ed your post.) Thanks for the vocabulary lesson but what was your point? Are you suggesting we shouldn't use the term overwhelmingly used by both NoDa community leaders and the general population and as well, just because a minority of old-time resident don't like modern "progress"?

City (boundries of this article)

There's no disputing that this is an article on the city of Charlotte. Not an article on the Charlotte area (or metro, region, or other synonym.) Reinforcing this fact, see the example that there are articles for Minneapolis and St. Paul plus a seperate article for Twin Cities (the greater region beyond the boundries of either city). So my question is why do we have so much content for things that are not in Charlotte? Belmont Abbey is listed as a college in this Charlotte article when it's neither in Charlotte or Mecklenburg County. And something that makes no sense to me at all, University of Phoenix is listed as a Charlotte college when it's an online university with no physical location here. And going further, somebody just added Gaston County Schools to the list of public schools in Charlotte. WTF?

I don't believe this sort of stuff belongs in an article on the city of Charlotte and I'd like to remove "stuff" like that. Can I get a consensus on what others think on this issue, and/or any existing Wikipedia policies that may apply here? Whatch'all think?

P.S. My gut tells me that sports may an exception to this "boundry" rule (Lowe's Motor Speedway (in Concord), Charlotte Knights (in Fort Mill, SC)) but I can't quite put my finger on a justification for why sports should be okay while schools and other things wouldn't be.

Sports are different because of the naming issue. You would go to New York City and expect a mention of the New York Giants - even though they play in New Jersey. Likewise, until a few years ago, the speedway was Charlotte Motor Speedway. I say nuke all the other stuff. --Golbez 05:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte's "Notable Residents"

I removed the list of "Notable Residents" because it only makes Charlotte look even more pathetic artistically and intellectually for a city of its size and age. I copied/pasted it here to expand until it reaches a halfway respectable status; better to just leave it out until a few people who are actually notable can appear on the list. --64.12.116.197 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable Residents

• Clay Aiken, American Idol runner-up and singer (from Raleigh, NC)
• Fantasia Barrino, American Idol winner and singer (from High Point, NC)
• Jonathan Byrne, former American Gladiator
• Chelsea Cooley, Miss USA 2005
• Ric Flair, legendary pro wrestling champion (but not born there)
• Harry Golden, author
• Jeff Gordon, NASCAR driver (but not born there)
• Billy Graham, evangelist
• Rick Hendrick, NASCAR team owner
• Sharon Lawrence, Hollywood actress
• Omar Tyree, author
• Carson McCullers, author

I just want to chime in that I agree. "Former American Gladiator"? WTF. There's got to be a threshold of notability (it that's a word). The only slam dunk here is Billy Graham. Fife Club 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Uptown or Downtown

Ok, is it downtown Charlotte or uptown Charlotte (referring to the area with the skyscrapers)... or are those two different parts of the city? If it's uptown, then all the "Downtown" words should be changed. Are there any Charlotte locals who know for sure? I know in my nearby town of Lexington, NC the center of the city is called "uptown". --TinMan 00:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The area with the skyscrapers is called uptown. --Shizane 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In Charlotte, Uptown and Downtown are exacty the same place. They are definitely not two different places (like in NYC and other places). For as long as there's been a city the area has always been known as Downtown. In the mid to late 80's city officials began a campaign to rebrand the downtown area as Uptown, thinking that it sounded more upscale and desirable. Both terms are technically acceptable but the city has done a good job of consistantly branding the Uptown name for well over a decade so the Uptown is more commonly used by residents. It should however be noted although city-financed signage says Uptown, the Federal government has never given a damn about local branding campaigns and refuses to change signs on Interstate 77 (and possibly 277) that still direct drivers to "Downtown". Fife Club 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I for one deliberately refer to it as downtown. I am a native Charlottean and it was always "downtown" until pretentious yuppies decreed it should be "Uptown" in the late 80s. --SquareWave 03:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I refer to it as "center city Charlotte" or "the city center" to alleviate any confusion. My understanding that the center city was called uptown because it was uphill from the rest of the city, though I suppose that's not true, at least today... --SQFreak 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is called Uptown because it's the highest elevation in Charlotte. It's referenced in another article Charlotte center city

City Wiki for Charlotte

I am considering starting a local Wiki for Charlotte.

This is not intended to compete with Wikipedia, it would be a community resource for use by current residents and newcomers alike.

Restaurant information, menus, reviews could be posted.

Information and experiences with local vendors and service providers would fit, a community driven "Angie's List."

Not only arts and entertainment sections but a space for local performers and artists to write about their work.

Everything else that community demand decides to supply for itself.

I am asking anyone who has ideas, opinions, criticism or support for this idea to write me at wiki@blueant.us

Thanks.

Relationship with the state of North Carolina

Historically there has often been animus between Charlotte and the state, which I think deserves special mention. The "Great State of Mecklenburg" gets no love from the state. To be the economic engine of NC, you would think they could at least keep the highways around here in halfway decent condition. I-485 has been in the works for how long now?

Absolutely agree. The state gives equal priority to all counties, regardless of economic need or impact. And the state simply doesn't like Charlotte. I was driving south on 85 from Virginia, and it wasn't til I was nearly to Greensboro that I saw a "Charlotte 50 miles" or whatever sign. --Golbez 08:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:OR. Make sure to provide sources for these contributions. Morphh 13:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No one's contributing yet. --Golbez 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Get off your Wikipedia high-horse, as stated above no one has contributed to the main article yet. There is no "original research" to the phrase "Great State of Mecklenburg". Look it up. The state of NC hates the fact that Charlotte is larger and more economically influential than the capital, Raleigh. Also I suggest you research DOT funding by county, if you truly believe this is idle speculation. You will see that counties in the Charlotte metro area are consistently underfunded in proportion to their population, growth rate, and economic contribution to the state's coffers. What we seek here on the discussion page is some consensus on how Charlotte's relationship vis-a-vis the state of NC should be described. I have my opinion but don't presume to speak for everyone, and invite such discussion here.

Neighborhoods

I'm a lifelong resident of Charlotte and I've personally never heard of Starmount, Steele Creek, or Derita. Am I safe in assuming that most would prefer the "neighborhoods" section should cover culturally and historically relevant areas of the city? I'd hate to imagine a visitor reading this article and hiking out to West Sugar Creek road to see the sights.

I've been here a decade and have heard of all three (though I think of Starmount as a road first). Steele Creek, in particular, is booming these days. I tend to think that "sights" should be in the sites of interest area, though. Jdb1972 14:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is listen to the news on either television or radio, or read it in the Observer and these areas are mentioned often. Actually,other than Starmount, I'm surprised you could live here more than a few years and not hear about the Derita or Steele Creek areas of town. Personally I've lived here for a decade and never ever heard of Biddleville but I didn't remove it. And as for "sights", I consider this to be an encyclopedic article of significant factual information, not a positive-only sight-seeing guide for tourists. If that were the case you'd have to remove blights like Eastland. Fife Club 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense.....but to end this argument here and now, I found a website that will prove an interesting fact about: Starmount. It states that starmount is the largest established neighborhood in South Charlotte(fact).[5]. Even though I do not live in Charlotte, Im sure that this large neighborhood should be mentioned. I took the liberty of adding this, quite interesting fact,to the page. Dragan101 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Biddleville and Derita are both historic areas - Biddleville was one of the historic centers of the African-American community, roughly centered around JCSU; Derita was (along with Paw Creek, Newell, Oakdale and Hickory Grove) a small unincorporated 'town' gradually absorbed into Charlotte through annexations in the 1980s and 1990s.

Derita has lost most of its' identity as a place during the last decade or two, but technically it still exists - until the late 1980s N. Graham Street became Derita Road at I-85, and the portion of Sugar Creek Road north of Mineral Springs was also Derita Road, until the mid 1990s. --Davidals 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

North Charlotte

Is North Charlotte, North Carolina part of Charlotte or is this a separate city? This may need to be a AFD nom. Morphh 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the city, and I agree and will do the AFD for you if you want. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! :-) Morphh 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a redirect may work better Morphh 03:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The fact that I always think of deletion first probably says something not so good about me. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Drive

I've listed this article for the Good Article drive for Wikiproject North Carolina. Morphh 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, please take the time to vote for North Carolina on U.S. Collaboration of the Week. Please Vote!!! We need more votes! Thanks, Morphh 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

I removed the fair use logos in the sports section. The use of those logos violates rules #8 of the fair use criteria. If you have any questions, please let me know.--NMajdan•talk 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hezbollah Cell" in Charlotte?

What a joke, just another example of post-9/11 hysteria running rampant. Fox News recently ran a story showing the millions of American federal tax dollars spent on convicting a few harmless Lebanese people living in Charlotte of "terrorist activities," accusing them of being a "Hezbollah cell" and supplying money to 'terrorists,' planning 'terrorist attacks,' being 'Islamic radicals,' etc.; a few federal prosecutors in NC ended up sentencing a Lebanese-American man to 155 years in prison for smuggling cigarettes from North Carolina to Michigan. Other people he was associated with received years in prison and were subsequently deported.

Here's some quotes from the 'report':

"One of those operations is the subject of 'Smokescreen: Hezbollah Inside America,' an exhaustive FOX News report about a Hezbollah cell that was operating for several years in Charlotte, North Carolina. FOX followed the many tentacles of this cell, which extended far beyond Charlotte — to Michigan, to the West Coast, to Canada and to Beirut, Lebanon, where most of the members were from. FOX News spent months tracking this story to all these places and more."

"An FBI agent who refused to allow the taunts and skepticism of his colleagues to dissuade him from tracking the connections that linked a group of Lebanese illegals operating in Charlotte to terror cells in Canada and Beirut. An alert sheriff’s deputy, working part time at a tobacco wholesaler in Charlotte, who spent his own time tracking down a suspicious group of Arabic-speaking customers who were trading wads of cash for tons of cheap tobacco. A young prosecutor willing to bet his reputation on a case that had to leapfrog over terrorist laws that were either antiquated or hadn’t even been written yet."

"While arrests were made in this case a year before 9/11, the case was tried just after 9/11, and that brought with it a whole new set of questions that we examine."

"According to the U.S. government, Harake was a military commander in Beirut and received money from Mohammad Hammoud, Cohen's client. Harake was the alleged conduit connecting the Charlotte cell to the military wing of Hezbollah. Cohen argued that Harake was just a used car salesman, who ran a humanitarian aid group for Hezbollah. But the night before the assassination, it appeared Harake knew that something was up. He called Cohen to say he couldn't make the interview the next day. "Things are about to get ugly," a nervous Cohen told me after speaking with the sheik."

SOURCES: [6], [7], [8] --172.145.6.40 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well known in the region for some time, kinda weird it took this Fox News story for anyone else to hear about it. Yeah, there was supposedly a group of people in Concord, North Carolina (just outside Charlotte) who bought large amounts of cigarettes, drove them out of state (to Michigan, I believe) and profited off the tax differential, then sent that money back to the Middle East. However, since it didn't happen in Charlotte itself, I can't see how this is relevant to the article. --Golbez 11:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Malls?

The shopping section is a list of malls replete with flowery advert-like descriptions. No other major city has a list of its malls any more than it has a list of its McDonalds. A city of 600,000 people doesn't need to mention these things. If there are no objections, I'm removing the section.--Loodog 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In most cities, you'd be right. However, in Charlotte, many neighborhoods are named after, or chiefly referred to by, their shopping centers. SouthPark in particular, Eastland, the Arboretum... however, I agree that we don't need this list, as only three of the malls mentioned are actually in Charlotte, and they can easily be merged into "Neighborhoods". Merge the SouthPark section into the SouthPark neighborhood section, maybe move Northlake into that section, definitely move Eastland there (and in fact, it already is), and give Concord Mills an honorable mention as one of the chief tourist sites in the region, five feet from Charlotte's border. --Golbez 14:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind all that there is a Charlotte metropolitan area article where regional malls are typically listed. As for on this city article, I agree, if at all, only list the ones within the city limits. --TinMan 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, which ones are within city limits? I won't remove those.--Loodog 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The ones that are listed now :) --TinMan 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought we reached a consensus to delete the shopping section

It does not really make sense to me to leave Eastland and SouthPark malls on the list. Besides articles on other cities don't even have a section for shopping malls. It makes more sense to delete the section entirely, and list major shopping centers on the Charlotte MSA article. Just an opinion. --Cardozo 17:09, February 2007 (UTC)

I could really go either way. I don't know if we've reached a consensus yet or not. Maybe need more input from others. The malls (in the city limits) are a significant part of the city just like local business employeers and hospitals. I know some city articles have shopping sections, but only if they have important info to cover. For example, the Cary Towne Center article was merged into the Cary, NC article because it wasn't notable enough for its own article. I think there needs to be some "shopping" section on this city article or somehow merge it into another section... whether it has a link to the MSA Shopping section or has brief descriptions, I don't really care. It would make more sense to me to just link to the mall articles directly here instead of sending people elsewhere to get to them though. --TinMan 00:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to delete the whole thing since no other cities have mall advertisements, but Golbez made an argument that the nature of Charlotte and its neighborhoods was necessarily inextricable from that of its malls. Since I've never set foot in the state of North Carolina, I didn't feel qualified to argue, and contented myself with removing the peacock words from their descriptions.--Loodog 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We reached a consensus to remove the ones not in Charlotte and non-notable ones; however, SouthPark and Eastland (much more SouthPark) are indeed notable. Perhaps they should be merged into the sections on their neighborhoods, but I wasn't aware if that had yet happened. This phenomenon is probably not unique to Charlotte, but in the other places I've been, usually the mall is named after the area; in Washington, people know White Flint and Tysons Corner, but these (at least I think, in the case of White Flint) were towns or neighborhoods before the mall came along. SouthPark is 100% named after the mall it surrounds. --Golbez 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If thats the case, maybe I should add Northlake Mall back to the list. The mall has a Charlotte address and development there is booming. --Cardozo 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

This section looks like a sprawling list and should be rewritten into article text. Discuss the popular culture and the examples in paragraph form, not in bullet lists. We don't want this to be a triva section. Morphh ^(talk) 13:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

External links edit war

OK, STOP EDIT WARRING! Now both sides explain your case why these (or some of these) links should be included or removed. Do they pertain to the article itself or a vital quality of the city? Are they encyclopediaic (or have a good reputation)? I personally know city-data is a bad website for information, but some of the others may need a second look. I mean, what kind of article are we trying to build here? What guidelines are we going by? --Triadian 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The person adding the links is using two different IPs to add these links. 208.53.183.165 and 24.172.118.10. The second IP I listed reverted-warred with several users, including myself, just over a month ago, and were blocked. They also reverted-warred yesterday and were blocked. The links added are not appropriate, and other users besides me have removed them. Links to websites like forums and relocation websites not appropriate. This page was semi-protected about a month ago due to the second IP adding those links. Acalamari 22:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

208.53.183.165 has now been been blocked for continually adding the external links. Acalamari 22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Triadian 22:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sick of people who don't live in Charlotte taking articles out who do not live there and live in Raleigh, I will edit—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.231.252 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter where we live; I don't have to live in Charlotte to edit the article about it. Acalamari 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And there is already a generous quantity of links to fill the needs of any casual viewer. I count 12, which is twice the number that Atlanta has. Wahkeenah 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable number for this article. An additional 5-10 just bloats the list and will be removed as spam. Acalamari 23:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been to Charlotte. I know what the Charlotte Observer is and I can even pick up Charlotte news out here. All of that is almost completely meaningless though. It still does not explain why you believe links like city-data.com and Charlotte Real Estate are encyclopediaic enough to remain in the external links list. I actually happen to agree with you that some links could remain, just judging by the external links sections of other cities... like Raleigh, haha. The Charlotte Observer is the city's main newspaper and the GIS link could be helpful. Yet, to keep the list from going overboard, we don't need opinionated blogs and restaurant reviews. --Triadian 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful to list the current links and the delete ones, and have the IP address argue as to why they are encyclopedic. I'm guessing he simply doesn't care about the rule that wikipedia is not a link farm, but this would at least give him a chance to explain. Wahkeenah 00:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the links removed, I'd say we should bring the one about the newspaper back, but links about real estate, property tax, and the forums/blogs are unencyclopedic. As for the links about relocating to Charlotte, do we really need them? Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a moving agent, after all. Acalamari 01:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - I 2nd Wahkeenah's proposal. Some of these links are obvious commercial spam. Some of them look more useful to the reader. It'll take some editing space - and we may want to create a new subpage to host the discussion - but I think it's worth doing. Rklawton 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt any worthy debate will result out of this. I agree, Wikipedia's it's not a travel guide; I say only list the links that back up the info in the article or provide further info on the subject. --Triadian 01:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

!!!PLEASE UPDATE SKYLINE PICUTURE!!!

I think Charlotte's skyline picture at the top of the page should be changed because it is not up-to-date. It doesn't even have the Hearst tower behind BofA Corporate center. I would change the picture myself but I can't because I am a new user...I also think it is not a very good angle :P. I uploaded a better picture of Uptown charlotte and the filename is "Charlotteskyline.JPG" the current is "Charlotteskyline.jpg" The only difference is the "jpg" is in capital letters. Change it if you can please!!!....(Doesn't have to be the picture I uploaded).

Archive 1

Archive 2

IPA Pronunciation

I am confused as to why the pronunciation for Charlotte is listed as /ˈʃɑrlət/) in the first sentence of the page. Isn't a more accurate pronunciation /ˈʃɑrlɪt/? I am from Charlotte, and I have always pronounced it to rhyme with "it" and "lit," written in IPA as /'ɪt/ and /'lɪt/, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miabadi (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Candle Stick

Why does inputting candle stick (with a space) into the search box bring you here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.199.141 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I deleted it. --Golbez (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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:

[9]

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:

[10]

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

[11]

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) [12] (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 [13] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [14]. 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. [15]. 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)