Talk:Charlotte, North Carolina/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


urbanplanet has a well-sourced and well-defined population summary page ( Some of the sources are back here at Wikipedia, but in those cases, the sources are well-documented from reliable sources (government). The Chamber numbers referenced here are not sourced to anything. The thing to keep in mind is there are at least 7 different populations, depending on definition: City, Urban Area, County, MSA, CSA, PCSA, and Region. As the Charlotte page reads today, it is wrong, at least by well-sourced numbers and well-accepted terminology. (Note that "region" as used here is a marketing term only.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"...As of 2006, census estimates show there are 705,478 people living within Charlotte's city limits, and 1,027,445 in Mecklenburg County." What? The indicated local gov citations do not support these figures, nor do the current estimates by the US Census Bureau or the NC Office of Budget & Management Demographics office (where even the 2007 estimate shows only 863,147 persons in the county (see: I know Charlotte's ego has a national inferiority complex that encourages it to present itself as big as possible, however methinks someone is over salting the soup, LOL... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to still be a problem in late 2010. Hopefully with the completion of the 2010 Census a correct population enumeration will be listed here in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnybs2004 (talkcontribs) 03:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

continued readdition of material

"Designed to carry passengers along five key corridors, the project is estimated to cost $8.9 billion. $4.6 billion are capital costs and $4.3 billion are operating costs through 2035. Originally, before the 1998 ballot referendum, the plan had been forecast to cost $1.1 billion."

is a passage that an anon keeps adding. The section already mentions that the system has proposed expansion and this much detail on proposed plans is excessive and undesirable to an article about Charlotte in general. Editor, if you'd present your reasons here for continually adding it, there's a chance it might be kept. Simply engaging in a revert war is guaranteed to have the opposite effect, and will get you blocked in the process, for longer and longer time periods.--Loodog (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not kwon what happen to my last statement but I do know this I am finish talking to you as I am not deleting just for the sake of deleting if you need to delete something maybe you need to go to that extra long article of Raleigh and delete some of that unnessisary stuff. I THINK YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CHARLOTTE AND NEED TO ASK YOUSELF WHY AM I DOING THIS????—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Anon, please provide reasoning for why your piece of material should be included that is not related to the editors here. Comment on content, not on editors.--Loodog (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on edit warring

re: "Designed to carry passengers along five key corridors, the project is estimated to cost $8.9 billion. $4.6 billion are capital costs and $4.3 billion are operating costs through 2035. Originally, before the 1998 ballot referendum, the plan had been forecast to cost $1.1 billion."
The dispute seems to be over an edit mentioning large cost overruns. If the overruns are a notable controversy, and important relative to this article, then the article should mention them. The ref footnote is to a long government report, which is a WP:primary source. Support for notability would be a WP:secondary source such as a reliable significant news report.
If notable, the controversy should be stated plainly. Example: "The project has been controversial for its cost overruns," with a reference. Then possibly follow that with some detailed numbers, but in that case also briefly describe the controversy from a neutral point of view. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been so controversial that there was a large attempt to have the transit tax removed in the last election.[1][2][3] The cost overruns are very notable in regard to the LYNX, in fact, it seems to be known more for cost (money hole) than anything else (second only to CMS). I do agree though that this should be on the Lynx article and to a less extent in the Charlotte article but it should get a mention as Colfer2 describes. Morphh (talk) 16:38, 08 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, certainly the controversy would be a notable inclusion, but, as is, the material only serves to pad the article with facts superfluous to the article's scope. The section already mentioned an expansion plan proposed, why run on about cost estimates on the Charlotte article? If people want to know more, we've got a page for that.
I don't know, even the controversy seems a bit out of place. I think of "transportation" sections in cities as being about infrastructure, not their politics. The whole controversy stuff is catalogued in detail at LYNX Rapid Transit Services. --Loodog (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The entire thing seems sort of POV to me. We have this nice section on CMS and this nice little section on LYNX... everything is rosy with no criticism. I don't even see a section on taxes, budget, or controversial politics. What is a city but a governmental boundary. The topics should be a summary of sub-articles or areas / notable interests of Charlotte and as such should present a NPOV (both sides). I'm not that familiar with how to deal with city articles, and perhaps in the context of history, the weight of these policy issues doesn't deserve mention. However, I think there should be some mention of long lasting notable areas of city controversy. I think they should be woven into the context of the article in the areas that discuss the particular subject. They don't have to be anything detailed - just mention the notable criticism relative to the city. Perhaps I'm wrong.. I just looked at the Boston article and it makes no mention of the cost of the Big Dig, the most expensive highway project in the U.S. Morphh (talk) 13:08, 09 July 2008 (UTC)
It mentions the Big Dig twice, but never cost or controversy.--Loodog (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point. Is this standard for city articles to omit major controversy / criticism? Morphh (talk) 14:08, 09 July 2008 (UTC)
It's possible it was omited out of bias by the editors, but it would be perfectly defensible to say that Big Dig has its own article with these things, and the costs and controversy surrounding the Dig are tangential to an article about Boston In General. I mean there are copious aspects of a city that are controversial and could be commented on. Government Center, for example.--Loodog (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are the links to articles in mainstream local/national media that meet WP:RS? None of this information matters if there's no verifiability. Flowanda | Talk 02:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: We remove the passage in question until someone finds sources showing notability, in which case it gets readded in the context of the funding controversy. If no one objects to this, I'm going to go ahead and request the page be unlocked.--Loodog (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple sources to consider.[4][5] Morphh [[user

talk:Morphh|(talk)]] 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are fine and document the cost concerns, but the question is whether that's within the scope of this article, or better relegated solely to LYNX Rapid Transit Services.--Loodog (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That I'm not sure about. It's certainly notable to LYNX but as for Charlotte, it becomes much less clear what weight to give it. As far as city budget issues, I see this as one of the larger contoversal points in recent years. The largest budget point would be Char/Meck Schools. The Rhino Times spends much print discussing these issues. Outside budget issues, probably one of the recent controversies was in regard to the Sheriff elect Nick Mackey. Morphh (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
At this point, they're probably not notable enough to include (based on the big picture). Morphh (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article for you guys to work on. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"James K. Polk" Picture

The picture under the Table of Contents on the Charlotte, NC page is NOT of the James K. Polk State Historic Site, as I am a volunteer there and was just there this morning.

an accurate picture can be found here

Thank You! (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah!!! I just realized that!!! That is my fault I was the one who put the picture there. I visited Appalachia and various cabins across North Carolina and Virgina for Flint a PBS segment and I needed pictures. I thought I would add the picture to wikipedia but obviously I put the wrong picture. Thank You for bringing this to my attention and I will find the actual picture and replace it as soon as I can. With Best Regards!!!

City Has No Seal, But Two Flag?

I've always wondered why Charlotte, unlike other major cities, has no seal at all. I thought it would be apart of the flag but apparently I was wrong. According to a trusted government site the city has no official seal. However, oddly it does have two flags. I kid you not. Some think the seal is the iconic crown symbolizing Queen Charlotte. I added the seal of Mecklenburg county because that is the seal that Charlotte uses also (even though it is not the official city seal).

Im wondering wheather Charlotte should instead of a seal and a flag instead show two flags and no seal? If anyone can help me with this it would be appreaciated.

Site: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daritto7117 (talkcontribs) 23:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mecklenburg County, North Carolina seal.png

The image Image:Mecklenburg County, North Carolina seal.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done: fair use rationale added. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Real Estate Link in References

I have removed a link found at the end of the References section. The link, points to a website for Trena Miller, a Keller Williams Real Estate agent. Having limited experience with Wikipedia, I cannot tell when the link was added, but I do know that as of today, I've removed it.


Also found and deleted the same link in the Further Reading section.Drumsy (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Charlotte Skyline

This photo was not taken by Jericho735. I took this photo myself from inside a condo at the Carlton Condos. I DO NOT appreciate someone else trying to take credit for it. It was posted at a couple of internet sites so my friends could see it. I guess Jericho735 really liked it and decided to claim it for his own. I know it's a great photo, but he needs to do his own work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photografurr369 (talkcontribs) 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Photograpfurr369, I've removed the image from both this article and another it was being used in. Can you provide any links to other websites where the image is shown? If it turns out that the image is from another site, it'll have to be deleted. Thanks. Acalamari 00:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also to add, can someone add more pictures and embellish the Charlotte page. This is 2011, and we have the skyline picture from 2006. If you look at other cities pages, there's look nice. Even Greensboro and Raleigh's page looks better than Charlotte.

Some POV and speculation

As this article has been prone to revert-warring, in the past, I'll discuss this before we get into another. I removed the text "Unfortunately had First Union not taken over Wachovia and the mortgage crisis not hit Charlotte could have had 3 major banking headquarters but instead is down to only a single one in BOA." on the basis that (1) it gives an opinion (i.e. "unfortunately"), and (2) it's speculation: it's speculating that if two events hadn't occured, then it's possible that Charlotte could have had three major banks. The two reverts are here, and the reason for reverting my removal was "every city has BOV": I don't know what "BOV" means, but I'll assume it was a mistype of "POV", in which case all because other articles on cities may be POV in some way does not justify adding POV to this article. The reason for reverting the revert was "discuss on talk page BEFORE reverting", which was my other invitation to start a discussion. I don't see what was wrong with my removal of the text I mentioned above. Acalamari 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was; in fact, the IP is a returning vandal who was the one trying to insert the ad/pov for Charlotte Trolley a few weeks ago. Revert and block, until he finds his way to a talk page. --Golbez (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Education Section

The education section is obviously biased and written by a native:

For many years, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) has sought to become the premier urban, integrated system in the nation. At its inception, that vision was audacious, viewed by many as completely unattainable. Years later, significant work remains. But it is also true that a focus on equity and student success, coupled with unwavering commitment and hard work by many people and agencies, has brought us to excellence in many ways. The goal of being the premier urban system no longer seems audacious. Instead, over the past decade, many national experts and observers have singled out CMS as one of the best school districts in America.

This section, especially the bold part, sounds like it was ripped from a recruiting brochure of some kind. Note 'brought US excellence'. The italic part citing 'many national experts and observers' is weasel-word-city. I have added a neutrality flag to the section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you here. I wouldn't say it was written by a native, sounds like a CMS advert. Most "natives" that I know don't have a good opinion of CMS. You can get a pretty good weekly bashing of CMS in the Rhino Times. The common thought is that it is way too big, cost too much, and doesn't produce the quality education that they claim. Morphh (talk) 12:50, 03 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a little Googling and found that the text from this section comes from this document: [6] It is a CMS document. This section should be written. I'll leave it up to someone who's actually at least been to Charlotte :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me that since someone has found the original document showing this is a CMS recruiting pamphlet that is plagiarized, it is no longer really disputed as per bias. Isn't there also a policy about plagiarism (i.e. taking credit as your thoughts when they obviously aren't) here? Kochamanita (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are the New Orleans Hornets talked about at length in the sports section?

The Hornets stabbed the city in the back and abandoned Charlotte, so why is there something on the order of 2-3 entire lines worth of text devoted to the team AFTER they skipped town? I understand describing why they left, but why talk about the New Orleans Hornets on a Charlotte page?

Also, since the page mentions sports, maybe someone should mention the 3 NFC Championship Games and 1 Super Bowl game the Panthers have played in? Or maybe those who want a MLB team relocated to the area?

Kochamanita (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


I may be wrong, but under the Charlotte Chamber website, I am pretty sure that Charlotte, NC population was updated from 2008 to 2009. The 2008 population that is on the Wikipedia site under Charlotte, NC is correct. But it needs to be updated to the new estimated population for 2009. The Charlotte Chamber suggests that the population has changed from 687, 456(2008) to 716, 874(2009). Please leave comments. :)

The Charlotte Chamber may say that, but what does the US Census Bureau say? That's the number needed here, and I only see that they have an estimate for 2008. If you can find a more updated version on the Census Bureau page, go ahead and change in the article, but be sure to provide the reference. If you need help formatting the reference, just ask and I or someone else can help with that. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:USCITY states "US Census figures should be used." The reasons for this are: (1) consistency, (2) neutrality, (3) accuracy, and (4) the fact that individual cities have the ability to formally challenge the Census Bureau's estimates, which the Census Bureau incorporates when they deem appropriate.--Louiedog (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, whenever you're editing something that has a source, in this case the population of Charlotte and surrounding areas, the information corresponding to the source(s) must match, otherwise you must change and cite the new source(s) to match your changes. You cannot leave the old source there and say I changed the population according to this site. From what I can see, you just stated that it is from the Charlotte Chamber (once, the rest wasn't explained), but you didn't cite that information at all, so randomly changing the figures and not explaining it from most of your edits can be seen as vandalism. But per above, census figures are generally the more accepted source of information for population. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Population figures for U.S. localities and states come from the US Census Bureau—no other figures are used in Wikipedia. In March 2010, the Census Bureau released 2009 estimates for counties and metropolitan/micropolitan areas; it has not yet released them for cities and towns, and until it does, the 2008 Charlotte estimate is the only valid estimate. Adding local estimates (e.g., from the Chamber of Commerce or a planning commission) is pure boosterism and POV. U.S. statistics should come from one consistent, reliable source, and that is the US Census Bureau.Mason.Jones (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

External Link Request


I am new to Wikipedia and have been trying to read up on all of the policies and procedures. Posting a request on this page seemed to be the best method. I thought it would be helpful to post an external link to:

It's an in-depth profile on Charlotte from a nationally read relocation and visitors guide, CarolinaLiving, that also does extensive research on the Carolinas. Please advise if this would be an appropriate edit to the Charlotte Wikipedia Page.

Thank you. Seasons365 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


A have some concerns about some of the content added to the crime section. Blogs can not be used as sources, not should primary transcripts requiring interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, this entire paragraph is unsourced and could be considered libel. POV statements such as "The city is also plagued by police misconduct and criminal actions by police." need significant sourcing and context. Who says it's "plagued" and by what measure? Statements like "Police officers have been arrested for everything from drug trafficking to sexual assault."... is this unique to Charlotte? Why is it given WP:WEIGHT since such things are in the extreme minority. I appreciate the good faith edits here but I think they violate policy and should be reverted until further discussion and sourcing takes place. Morphh (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Company Headquarter Misconception

There is a huge misconception on this wiki between Companies that are based in the Charlotte city proper as compared to the MSA, CSA and region. Since this is a wiki page for the Charlotte, NC city it should ONLY contain info on companies Headquartered within city limits. Companies in the MSA should be noted in either the Mecklenburg County wiki or in the Charlotte MSA wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnybs2004 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Recommended sections for removal

I recommend removing the 'Suburban municipalities of Charlotte and their populations' section. The information given is simply a list of nearby city and towns, already covered by the Charlotte Metropolitan Area. They should be linked instead to the CMA as oppose to simply reiterating it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte - redirect to Charlotte (disambiguation)

I don't know if it's wise to open this discussion again, but wouldn't it make more sense to direct the page "Charlotte" to "Charlotte (disambiguation)" rather than having it come here to the city?

While hit counts are one way of indicating what most people are going to when they type in "Charlotte", it might be be out of curiosity or because it's the first and most detailed entry available on wikipedia rather than a primary usage. The previous discussion based the decision that "Charlotte" (the city in North Carolina) was the primary use of Charlotte because it received the most hits statistically. I don't think it's sufficient to make the decision for this redirect merely based on the most common use.

For example, the name Victoria does not redirect to the most prominent page associated with that name; if that were the case, wouldn't it make sense to direct it to Queen Victoria? Instead, the page goes to a disambiguation page that allows the users to select.

For this reason, I think that "Charlotte" should be redirected to Charlotte (disambiguation), which would also allow users to direct themselves to Charlotte, North Carolina if that is what they intended or Charlotte (name). (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Culture, Too much editing, More Info needed!!

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

Go look at Atlanta, Georgia's page and go shorten their page which is gigantic and filled with plenty of general information unlike ours!!! It's really annoying that the Atlanta page is sooooo long and ours is so short (poriod). Just my two cents. With Respect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daritto7117 (talkcontribs) 18:00, 19 April 2008

I would have to agree with Daritto7117..The city of Charlotte has approximately 750,000 residents, and we at least need to add a culture page. It looks plain. The article have to sell. It is important to market it for the people, especially if someone was interested in moving to Charlotte and wanted to see what fun exciting things that's going on. Personally, I wouldn't be interested in visiting or moving to Charlotte, if I don't see what fun and exciting things goes on in the city. Can someone include a culture section. The city have Carowinds, The Nascar Hall of Fame, The EpiCenter, Discovery Place, NC Music Factory, etc. Entice the viewers by adding pictures. I hate to say this even Greensboro (a city with 200,000 residents) page looks better than Charlotte. Also add pictures of neighborhoods, such as Ballantyne.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Not certain what you want really. The article has several photos on it already. We don't need to overload it with pics. Also, the purpose of the article (and Wikipedia in general) isn't to market or "sell" the city to people. It is an encyclopedia article that tells about the city, not another outlet for the tourism board. The things mentioned are in the article. I would definitely agree that the culture section needs improvement. Needs to be in prose format and more info provided and cited than exists now. Daritto7117's comments were about a really old version of the page (from 2008). Some of the things discussed then have been remedied. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Main library.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion


An image used in this article, File:Main library.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Main library.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

possible revisions to history section

I am a completely new editor who just registered, so please excuse any newbie mistakes in formatting or protocol. I am part of an informal group known as the Charlotte History Roundtable, which includes representatives of many local history museums, archives and organizations, as well as many local researchers and authors who have published on Charlotte history topics. (In fact, most of the citations in the existing history section and the recommendations for further reading were written by people who are part of this group.) We are interested in collectively reviewing and making revisions to the history section of this article over the next couple of months, with the idea that it may be receiving heavier-than-usual traffic with the upcoming DNC and we'd like to make sure it's well vetted. A couple of questions: 1. can a veteran advise us on the recommended length for the history section of a city page like this, so that we don't go too far overboard? 2. Is there anyone active on this talk page that feels particular ownership for the history section or that we should engage in dialog with here on the talk page before diving into making changes? Charlotte historian (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please see the welcome message on your talk page for links to more information about editing and the Wikipedia process. As far as editing this article: Be Bold! Really. Feel free to edit the page and if it is not cited correctly, or if it starts getting too long or detailed, other users will edit it and shorten it or suggest different directions to go. You can take a look at other city articles and compare, but, really, add what you think an encyclopedia article should cover. Sometimes, articles with long sections have those sections broken out into separate articles. So don't really worry about getting too much info. Just make sure it has reliable sources. I really don't think this article is plagued by people who think they "own" it. No one owns any article, really. Thank you for your interest. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Airport ranking is logically impossible

"Charlotte/Douglas International Airport is the 8th busiest airport in the U.S. and sixth busiest in the world" It would be possible to be the 6th busiest in the U.S. and 8th in the world but not the other way around. The U.S. is a subset of the world's airports therefore the ranking within the subset must be equal to or less than all members. (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Bernie Hayden

Fixed: according to the source it is sixth for both. Acalamari 18:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mint Museum

The Mint Museum of Craft & Design no longer exists as a standalone museum and hasn't since 2010. It is now a collection part of the Mint Museum Uptown at Levine Center for the Arts. Unless it makes sense to list all of the other collections of the museum, it doesn't make sense to list Craft & Design. The old Craft & Design building is now occupied by the Foundation for the Carolinas. The Mint Museum now exists as two separate museums, the Mint Museum Uptown at Levine Center for the Arts and the Mint Museum Randolph. Both were consolidated into one, more concise listing for the Mint Museum. Obviously, information for all the museums as well as the old Craft & Design Museum are on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Census estimates

Rather than continue to revert over this, can sources be provided for the 2012 Census estimates? If sources can be found, the changes should also be consistent throughout the article rather than just limited to the lead and the infobox, as they have been.

Besides, have last year's estimates even been released yet? The "Demographics" section for this article states that the 2011 estimates weren't released until June 2012, leading one to assume that 2012's won't be released until June 2013. Acalamari 11:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous: at least three editors now (myself included) have reverted the unsourced changes. In response to this edit summary, the onus is on the person making the changes to provide the sources, but I have looked for them and haven't yet found anything; also, shouting at people doesn't automatically make the unsourced changes correct, either.
The sources, if there are any, need to be provided, otherwise the new figures will keep getting reverted (especially when they conflict with current references); I will accept the new information if it can be sourced and would even be happy to add the sources to the article myself. Acalamari 09:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of hospitals in Charlotte, North Carolina

The information in this article is not mentioned in the city's article. unneeded fork. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

my proposal is to simply transfer the table that is in that article to this one and redirect the article. Any comments? Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Needed information

Nice page. Lots here to work with but there are some serious gaps I wonder if anyone has worked on. Education, employment, research etc, the things that make Charlotte important to the state and the US. The brief on second largest financial centre, for example, relies wholly on the presence of a couple of banks from what I can gather. These also provide information on economic stability and future contributions. Important stuff Malangthon (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not enough people care about lacrosse for it to be listed as a major professional sport.

Lacrosse is boring, please remove Charlotte's affiliated lacrosse team that nobody knows or cares about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Renaming the article to simply "Charlotte"

I would like to suggest that this article be renamed from "Charlotte, North Carolina" to simply "Charlotte". Articles about other large cities seem to omit the state name from their titles. I think that Charlotte has grown enough to where it can be referred to without qualifying the state name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATPhil (talkcontribs) 19:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Most definately NO. WP:USPLACE is quite clear on the convention for naming US cities. As this is not anywhere near the only city in the country named "Charlotte", it would just be confusing for the users of Wikipedia. See Charlotte (disambiguation). That page is named "Charlotte (disambiguation)" because the page named simply "Charlotte" already redirects here. What you propose serves absolutely no purpose. John from Idegon (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - As already mention, there is more than one Charlotte in the world today, not to mention its a common name. Dropping "North Carolina" from the article name appears more ego driven than helpful. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
As it turns out, there is actually a list of cities that the Associated Press designates as 'standalone' cities. Wikipedia (for the most part) abides by this convention. Sadly, Charlotte is not on that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATPhil (talkcontribs) 16:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


WP:USCITIES recommends one to three notable nicknames. Here I've narrowed down what I believe are the most common, "The Queen City", "The QC", and "The Hornet's Nest". All are sourced in the body of the article. I'd like to say "Crown Town" is a notable nickname but my efforts to find a source have yielded only real estate websites, blogs and localized sources. If even we do find sources, we should try to keep this list of nicknames brief. — MusikAnimal talk 01:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

One obvious source is the Charlotte Chamber, which mentions on the website several times its "the Queen City." Also, "the Queen City" is what Charlotte is known, named after Queen Charlotte and even mentioned on her wiki article. "The QC' is urban slang for "the Queen City," and that can be sourced by Urban Dictionary (assuming its acceptable to wiki standards). "The Hornet's Nest" is from its revolution days; gotta use books for that, pulling from Google Books:
  • Hornets' Nest: The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
  • Touring NC Revolutionary War Sites
  • Charlotte and the Carolina Piedmont
That was just three books, but there are many more and easy to get the information for referencing purposes. You can honestly find references for all the other nicknames that was listed, if you know where to look. But you all can discuss that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the aforementioned nicknames I think are good to stay as they are already sourced. Per WP:INFOBOXREF we wouldn't need references in the infobox unless the content is considered controversial. The Urban Dictionary I'm afraid is not considered an acceptable source since it is entirely user-submitted content. As for the other nicknames, I think it's important to stick to ones that are known outside the city itself. Plenty of evidence The Queen City is a prominent nickname, and we even have a professional basketball team serving the name "Hornet's Nest". Other nicknames I believe should similarly be widespread in referring to Charlotte. — MusikAnimal talk 02:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Important businesses

OK, so one user has decided that there are too many businesses under the "Economy" section. I tried to save most of them, but they've still decided to remove them again. I don't want to get in to a do/undo war, but what would be better? Having more of the businesses or less? He cited something about not being a directory, but after I edited it to be less like a directory, they still removed half the businesses. What should I do? Cnd474747 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The less the better. Fortune 500 companies are definitely something which could (but not necessarily should) be included. Stuff like the NASCAR hall of fame shouldn't even be in the economy section, but probably under sports. The fact that a company has an office in the city doesn't make it notable. National or regional HQ would make it so, if it was a Fortune 500 company. Most of the companies still in the article shouldn't be there. It actually diminishes the stature of the city to have truly non-500 companies in the article, unless they are truly notable for local reasons (I can't think of one off the top of my head, but if Jim Beam, for example, wasn't a fortune 500 company and was located in Charlotte, that would be appropriate). Look at the articles for cities like Boston, Phoenix, and Chicago, all cities with far larger economies, and they have quite a few less companies mentioned. Then look at cities like Columbus and SF, which are similar in size to Charlotte, and again, far fewer companies. Onel5969 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


"Summers are hot and humid, with a daily average in July of 78.5 °F". This statement seems contradictory, but maybe because it's an average temperature stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The daily average is misleading and probably should be rewritten using average high instead. However, the daily average is correct as it is an average of the whole 24-hour day, just not very helpful. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

There's a move request at Talk:Charlotte (disambiguation) that would take away the current Charlotte redirect to this page. You may or may not be interested in voicing an opinion on that page. Red Slash 23:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Needs Newspapers

The article tells us nothing about what newspapers are printed in the city, and is therefore incomplete! (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it incomplete since not every populated place mention on wikipedia has a local newspaper. However, you are right that they should at least be mentioned in the Media section, similar to Atlanta. --WashuOtaku (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Compared to Atlanta GA ???

Isn't Atlanta in the Southeast? How is Charlotte largest city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte is the 16th largest city in the United States with 792,862, Atlanta is the 40th largest city in the United States with 447,841; population wise, Charlotte is nearly twice the population size of Atlanta. However, The Atlanta Metro Area is the 11th largest in the United States, with 6,092,295, Charlotte Metro Area is 25th largest with 2,454,619. Basically, metro Atlanta is huge, but Atlanta itself is small; while its the opposite in Charlotte (big fish in small pond). I hope that helps. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Lucy Lawless

Okay, if CMPD was only formed in the '90s, what did Charlotte do for policing before that? Hire Pinkertons? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"The CMPD is unique, in that it was formed in 1993 with the merger of the former Charlotte City Police Department and the Mecklenburg County Rural Police Department. " It's almost as if the article on the CMPD has the answer you seek. --Golbez (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Which is no help, if I'm wondering about what happened before the merger--like when the city had its own actual department. (Apparently, it doesn't have any newspapers, either...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Er... "what did Charlotte do for policing before that" it had the Charlotte City Police Department, that's what it did for policing. What exactly is your question here, since it seems shrouded in repetition and sarcasm? --Golbez (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to take a guess and say that you're looking for more detailed information on the police department before the merger, which is fine, though on that I have no information, but otherwise your apparent question was answered. --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Charlotte, North Carolina

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Area universities.

Can we please include Gardner-Webb University under the universities section? Someone keeps disagreeing with me ignorantly. The school's city and county is included as part of Charlotte's metro/combined statistical area. And don't say we can't include metro schools. Belmont, Wingate, and Davidson are included yet they are not in Charlotte and instead are located in the metro area. Gardner-Webb is an area school. Can we please quickly reach a consensus on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabuhay92 (talkcontribs) 22:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Charlotte, North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


"Buzz City" nickname for Charlotte? Someone said it's not widely used but I hear it a lot. Also, their pro basketball team dedicated their site to the name -> (MisterJay123 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC))

"Buzz City" is an advertisement gimmick that the Charlotte Hornets started when the NBA returned the team name to the city. The nickname didn't exist before that and is not used except in conjunction with the NBA team. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlotte, North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

City timeline

What is missing from the Timeline of Charlotte, North Carolina? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sept. 2016 Riots

At some point the article should mention or link to something about the ongoing Charlotte riots, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not see why it should, we do not have an section regarding the 2015 riots; unless this becomes something more that irreversibly change the city, it will likely not be included here. However, there will likely be, if not already, an article specific to the events that are happening currently in Charlotte. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The riots currently listed as part of the Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott article, may breakout as its own article once hits critical mass. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see why there is no section regarding the 2015 riots, either. More generally, I would say that the "history" section should have a summary of recent history at the bottom, which should include at least a one-line reference and link to these riots, the previous ones, and any other noteworthy events. The article on Ferguson, Missouri would be a good example of this, except that it probably has too much information that should be outlinked. (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Unlike Ferguson, the riots have yet to produce a undeniable change in the city. History is made every day in Charlotte and listing every such event is tedious and not the purpose of the main article. However, this is only my opinion and I would gladly welcome other opinions on the matter before any decision is made. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand that history is made everywhere everyday I don't think listing every detail is appropriate either just the main points. I also think that a significant protest that might inform others what they have been hearing about nationally through other sources should be noted in the recent history at the bottom like suggested. In my opinion I think this event has changed the city already and leaving it out like it did not happen is not reasonable.Brlaw8 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that 2-3 sentences, something along the lines of how the riots in Los Angeles and Baltimore were handled in that article would be appropriate.Brlaw8 (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Both cities in example had major riots; Baltimore itself had several major riots that dot its history. The current event happening is nothing compared to those, two-three sentences would be overkill in that case. I could accept maybe one sentence stating both 2015 and 2016 riots regarding police shootings and have links to their respective pages. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the Charlotte Riot 2016 is a major riot especially when a protester outside of the original victim in this case that is Keith Lamont Scott was also killed unlike the protest events that occurred in Baltimore in which people were only injured/arrested but no deaths outside of Freddie Gray. I also agree that linking the articles in one or two sentences would also be appropriate. Something similar to how it was before the changes were reverted under the recent history section of Charlotte.Brlaw8 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Brlaw8: I have added one sentence regarding both protest events in Charlotte to the shooting deaths of Jonathan Ferrell and Keith Scott. I didn't call them riots because for the most part it wasn't riots like you see in other cities where buildings are burned down and staggering violence. Both are linked, which share more information about the events. Hopefully this will be satisfactory. --WashuOtaku (talk)

Yes it is satisfactory. Thanks.2600:1003:B018:4AF:8DEE:41D5:FC0B:EAA4 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)