Talk:Charlotte, North Carolina

PROBLEM WITH METRO POPULATION.

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

As of 2008, the Charlotte Metropolitan Area had a population of 2,491,650.[1] OKAY, THIS FIGURE NEEDS TO BE RECONCILED WITH THE OFFICAL METRO DESIGNATION BY THE U.S. CENSUS. THAT FIGURE SHOWS A POPULATION OF ---- #37 Charlotte–Gastonia–Concord NC–SC 1,583,016 ------. THIS COMES FROM WIKIPEDIA PAGE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas A resident of Charlotte is referred to as a Charlottean (/ˌʃarləˈtiːən/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.179.196 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2008‎ (UTC)

No reference for some of Roads and Highways Section

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

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

The same person who wrote this negative fact is the same person who wrote extreamly positive facts about Atlanta's highways. Surprised? However, that aside, it is not referenced properly either. So I will set it up for speedy deleation soon if the right source refernce is not placed there. With much respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daritto7117 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 19 April 2008

Mass Transit connotations

Assuming I have no disagreements on this, I plan to modify the section describing CATS service. The wording used currently seems to try to put transit systems in an overly positive light. I think that the wording here is not neutral. Intelqual (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

An editor User:Washuotaku has taken it on himself to execute an arbitrary ban on history (namely the railroad to Monroe, Hamlet and Wilmington) for Charlotte. An explanation and discussion needs to happen before transportation history is arbitrarily deleted, banished from the article.Dogru144 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

There are specific articles that cover Charlotte transportation that do not need to be featured on the main Charlotte article. The history of former routes belong on Charlotte station (Amtrak) or Charlotte station (Seaboard Air Line Railroad) (if Seaboard operated), so it does not need to be posted here. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an arbitrary and unprecedented deletion. The editor seeks to snuff out / suppress history. History is relevant. Why is Charlotte today eight times the population that it was in 1940? It is its present population size because of actions that happened in the past, its history.

But let's now investigate Charlotte in relation to other North Carolina cities: How did Charlotte move from the position that it had as third ranked among major cities in North Carolina in 1870 to surpassing Raleigh in 1900, and then surpassing Wilmington to be first ranked in 1910?

Raleigh in 1870: 7,790, in 1880: 9,265, 90: 12.678; 1900: 13,643, in 1910: 19,218
Wilmington in 1870: 13,446, in 1880: 17,350, in 1890: 20,056; in 1900: 20,976; in 1910: 25,748
Charlotte in 1870: 4,473, in 1880: 7,094, 90: 11,557; 1900: 18,094; 1910: 34,014

As the article begins to hint at the factor of railroads in the first great population boom in Charlotte: it mentions Charlotte's place in the railroad line from Atlanta to Washington and it cites Charlotte's position on the mainline of the Southern Railway as a factor in that growth. "By the 1880s, Charlotte sat astride the Southern Railway mainline from Atlanta to Washington, D.C. Farmers from miles around would bring cotton to the railroad platform in Uptown."

Furthermore, additional railroad construction in the 1880s linked Charlotte directly to the east, through Hamlet, to Wilmington (the largest deep-water port in the Carolinas in that period), on the very line whose Charlotte station you intend to suppress from the article.

In fact, the article warrants even more, not less, discussion of railroads and Charlotte's booming centrality in the state and the western Carolinas. I have not even mentioned the important rail connections south from Charlotte to Columbia, South Carolina.

What is presented here is an abbreviation of what was in the Charlotte SAL station article. I'm meeting you part-way by removing six words from what I wrote. I presume that you are open to compromise. You are setting a trap to refer this to the Amtrak article. The service I mention predates Amtrak. Dogru144 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You are not adding the paragraph in the History section of the article, you are adding it in the current Transportation section. I already explained this was not the appropriate location for this information and you have alternative options available. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Please respond to what I wrote on history

I explained the meaning and relevance of history with respect to Charlotte, NC.

Yet you deleted it, without response to what I wrote. I took great care to explain this, with copious data. And with careful attention to Charlotte. Yet, no dignity of a response. Just this: "You are not adding the paragraph in the History section of the article, you are adding it in the current Transportation section. I already explained this was not the appropriate location for this information and you have alternative options available."

talk, I am sure that you appreciate Charlotte, then it would follow that you would have interest in what contributed to its strong growth in different periods. Dogru144 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hitlerstadt??

Ok saw this on Simpsons(s15e21) Just wanna confirm it...Charlotte was never named Hitler-Stadt/Town? Lasse Miranda (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

City of Trees

I've removed this as a bona fide nickname as it does not appear to be such. The source given was a plug for the urban forest, common to many cities, and e.g. this suggests that it is not a real nickname. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You did the right thing. The editor that added it obviously ignored the note that says needing consensus for all nicknames, which would include any new ones. --WashuOtaku (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Charlotte, North Carolina.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Seaboard Air Line Railroad

Editor Washuotaku has now removed the sentence "Until 1958, the Seaboard Air Line Railroad operated a daily passenger train from its own station to Wilmington", twice, from the Transportation section. He has reverted the addition of this line when it was added by two different editors (I am one of them). It is sourced to two sources. I see no reason why it should be removed. Looking to discuss this removal here. Wes sideman (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed, see above, but the reason it was removed is because it does not belong there. There is an existing article for the Seaboard station and another for the current Amtrak station; both are ideal locations to discuss historic intercity rail transportation. The section in question, Transportation, identify all the current transportation options available in Charlotte and at no time delves into the history of mass transit, roads, or air travel in the city, they also have their respective articles, so why have an exception for Intercity rail? --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Dogru144: that it was an arbitrary deletion. His arguments in the above discussion are sound. My opinion on your arguments is that you're basically saying "I don't like it being here". Other editors may disagree. I suggest asking for a fourth or fifth opinion if you're still looking to delete that line. I'm a neutral third opinion and I see no valid reason to delete Dogru144's addition. Wes sideman (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dogru144, Washuotaku, and Wes sideman: I agree with Washuotaku that this content seems out of place in the Transportation section. If as Dogru144 says, it was important to the history of the city, then it does belong in this article in addition to the others that Washuotaku, but in the History section. That would be a good place to add more context about the impact of railroads on the city's development, if appropriate. Would anyone object to moving this text to the History section and perhaps expanding it? -- Beland (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)